Topics Religion

Question G'day Philosophers, Please let me preface my Q. by saying that it is not cynical, but an issue of long-standing puzzlement to me. Here goes. Why is it that Christians who read and believe in the authenticity of the Bible, can still see God as a supreme being of love and compasion? There is in my Bible instance upon instance of God being a malicious, genocidal monster who would compete with Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein with his excesses. I just don't get it! Dave.

Accepted:
January 16, 2006

Comments

This depends a great deal upon how one reads the Bible. Frankly, I think there are many people whose views on this kind of question are inconsistent, even incoherent, just as you suggest. Take, for example, Pat Robertson, who recently suggested that God had caused Ariel Sharon to have a stroke because he had withdrawn from Gaza, or Ray Nagin, who suggested that God had sent hurricanes to the Gulf Coast because God was upset about how the US treats the poor. One might find these suggestions pathetic for all kinds of reasons. (The latter suggestion is particularly bizarre, seeing how it waslargely the poor who were trapped in New Orleans, the wealthy havingmanaged to get out.) But, indeed, I find it difficult to see how anyone who was prepared to take them seriously could also regard God "as a supreme being of love and compassion". It rather makes God out to be a vengeful despot.

If, then, by "believe in the authenticity of the Bible", you mean "regard every word of it as literal truth", then there is indeed a problem here. But there was already a problem there, since, for example, the four gospels contradict one another repeatedly. And there are plenty of parts of the Bible, even narrative portions, that pretty clearly weren't intended as literal truth. The Book of Job, for example, is an instance of a literary form that was very common when it was written. That is, it's a story. That doesn't mean one can't take it seriously. One can. It's a very good, very powerful, and very challenging story.

So I would suggest, myself, that "taking the Bible seriously" needn't mean taking it as literal truth. And if one doesn't, then it's not obvious what we should make of the more malicious deeds that are ascribed to God.