Would you, then, look at God different?

[Sean Gray]

http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=10262001

[CaptJodan]

But since God has omnipotent power and complete knowledge, he knows what it is like to be one of us. The great difference is that we can think, while bacteria can't. Besides, you're putting the human flaw of indifference to suffering on god.

Well, the OP is basically about changing God from being the God of Christianty into...something less than evil somehow. Or having just a different God with different attributes, from what I understand. If so, then you really need to reinvent God into something more palletable.

Bacteria may not be the best example, and neither may a fly or mosquito that I decide to kill because it entered my house (I feel little remorse over the creature's death which, at the very least, has a little more thinking power than a bacteria.) However the point is, as a God, I would expect God to be so above understanding that we would be so low on his intelligence scale that it would be as if we were caring for a bacteria or a fly that just entered our room.

As for the human flaw of indifference into God, that's true. I just gave God the human flaw of indifference, replacing it with the human flaw of mass murder, stupidity, and genoicide which we've seen from Christianity's God. I fail to see how this is bending the rules.

(Note: I'm not saying I believe any of this, but I could more live with an indifferent God than a God who sits on high away from pain and death and gives out pain and death at will for shits and giggles.)

[Magnetic]

Bacteria may not be the best example, and neither may a fly or mosquito that I decide to kill because it entered my house (I feel little remorse over the creature's death which, at the very least, has a little more thinking power than a bacteria.) However the point is, as a God, I would expect God to be so above understanding that we would be so low on his intelligence scale that it would be as if we were caring for a bacteria or a fly that just entered our room.

Ah, but since God made us "in his own image", he may not look at us as we look at bacteria or a fly. When we give human characteristics to a robot (like Honda's little robot), we tend to subconsciously treat it differently than a basic Dell computer. One could argue that this supreme being would then look at us more favorably.

I may be talking about 'reinventing' God on a secondary level, but my main point is the possibility that the writers of the OT and NT through in concepts of God that weren't his, . . . and just because one of them was 'brilliant' enough to include that "all the words of the bible were given by the Holy Spirit, . . . . . ", that would mean that those who have come to believe that it (the Bible) WASN'T a literal book are labeled as heritics by the church.

[CaptJodan]

Ok I gotcha, Mag. Still, I think it all goes back to two basic points.

1. If the atrocities mentioned in the Bible are to be parables only, and not designed to be literal, what kind of message is God sending? If those writing the Bible got the parables wrong, then what the hell WAS God trying to say? Was overzealous worship of him still top on the list, or was that a parable too?

2. Assuming they got it wrong, assuming God didn't commit atrocities, and assuming his message is different somehow, then it still leads back to creation. Why are we here? Why are we suffering? Is that not cruel enough punishment from this God? Is sin still the big point in all this, and if so, why make all of us suffer for the actions of a few?

Creation as we stand now is a hard leap to make for me because the kind of world he created isn't ideal, and you would think if God was moral and ethical, he would create the ideal world.

Given the OP the way I understand it, my opinion of God therefore just couldn't change based on a couple of verses being allegory.