Journey to Atheism, part 1

Okay, so I’ve decided to start transferring the specific livejournal entries that deal with my loss of faith. This entry was written in December of 2006. John and I had been separated since late summer, and had recently started meeting and going on little family dates — outings at the park and whatnot. I was in a transitional phase in my life, and more certain and sure of myself as a mother and a wife.

austintakingpictures

At that time, I still believed in God. Jesus I wasn’t so convinced on — I thought he was probably a wise man and a prophet, but I did not believe he was born of a virgin and I seriously doubted he was the actual son of god. I had been raised mormon, and by 2006 I had (temporarily) resolved my concerns about the inaccuracies in the LDS faith by saying that although I did not believe the LDS church had the fulness of the gospel, I did think of all the religions currently on earth, they were the most accurate.

Of course, now I realize that being the most accurate religion is a bit like saying I think Harry Potter was a better wizard than Gandalf. It doesn’t really matter, because we’re arguing a fictional point. Anyway, without further ado:

livejournalicon11

The Nature of God

December 14, 2006

I am consistently fascinated and appalled at mankind’s constant presumption. How those who, by the simple expedient of being raised ‘Christian’, or ‘accepting God’ then presume to know His mind. How could a mortal ever comprehend the eternal nature of God?

In the Old Testament, we see a God of fire and punishment. In the New, we are told of his love and forgiveness. It has been theorized that the wicked nature of man provoked the fire and punishment, but I wonder. Has the nature of mankind changed so dramatically that we no longer require cities to be laid to Heavenly fire and sword? Or is it merely that, since man is based on God, our capacity for growth and change is reflected in Him? Interesting questions.

I love listening to people who take the Bible literally. It’s so interesting to hear their arguments. They tell me we cannot understand the mind of God when I question the nature of the Trilogy, but in the next breath, they insist that the world was created in a span of seven earthly days and that homosexuality is evil. The Bible says so.

I ask, how do we know the length of a Heavenly day? Perhaps a Heavenly hour spans earthly centuries, a Heavenly day earthly millennia. Perhaps God works by natural laws, and the theory of evolution is not, in fact, a mockery of God’s work. By that reasoning, God’s fingerprints are clearly visible in every scientific precept. Atoms and genetic strands are the voice of God, if we could but understand. One wonders, however, if we are meant to understand. If the mysteries we are here to unravel are less to do with God’s creations and more to do with emotional and spiritual growth.

It seems, to me at least, that homosexuality cannot be a sin. I say this because of the negative feelings directed toward it, not just in recent years but also throughout most of history. In the face of such overriding disapproval, alienation from friends and family, it seems that only someone who is self-destructive and possibly insane would voluntarily choose such a lifestyle. If homosexuality were a choice, it would have died out long ago because of the intense negativity connected with it. So it stands to reason that there is some genetic cause for it. Therefore, as man is created by God and in his image, it also stands to reason that God knows and understands homosexuality, having created it.

It is argued against because the Bible said, “Go forth and multiply,” as well as that a “man shall not lie with a man.” Interesting, and with valid arguments against it. If one were so inclined (and I am), one could also point out that the Bible is not just a religious book, but also a historical and political book. The words brought down to us, given to us in our modern tongue, are only a part of those originally recorded.

Men have edited them, throughout centuries. Men with political agendas, men who have built kingdoms and waged wars based on what they interpreted. I have been told that those men were inspired of God, that they acted as hands of God, writing exactly what he desired. I find that interesting. Does God not have His own (literary) voice?

I’m not saying I expected God to write the book Himself, but one does wonder why, if all these men were divinely inspired of Him, they each have a distinctive writing style, with no common voice. I have been told that, though these men were divinely inspired of God, they were still men, with disparate personalities. Which brings us back to the nature of man.

As they were still men, mortal and fallible, is it not conceivable that they spun their own interpretations and preconceptions on the inspiration they were given? It is not possible that their own prejudices and political leanings were given voice? Is it not possible that we have been learning not just God’s will (to forgive and love our brethren), but also the will of some human scribe, whose name has been lost to memory, though his ideas live on in the guise of the prophets whose words they were supposed to be recording?

As I walk through life, I try to remember several basic, immutable precepts. First, no man should judge another; we do not have a complete understanding. Second, “As you have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, you have done it unto me.” In other words; “My mom says if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.” The same goes for actions as words.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Journey to Atheism, part 1

  1. Thanks for your perspective, Kimberly. In reference to god's voice, I was actually referring to god's literary or writing voice; I should probably clarify that in the entry. I meant that, as far as the bible goes, the books are written in VERY different literary voices — it's like mixing chapters of Tolkien's work up with chapters of Rowling's and Martin. They may be writing about the same stuff — magic and moral allegories and heros — but their literary voices are drastically different. If I handed you a copy of THE TIGERS WIFE, with all the author/ title information blanked out, and a copy of THE THINGS THEY CARRIED, likewise blanked out, you would still be able to tell within a page or so that two different authors wrote them. On the other hand, books like the Sweet Valley High or R.L. Stine Goosebumps series are written by many different authors but maintain the same voice throughout, due to creative control.My argument is that the bible, being alleged to be God's inspired word, should (like the earlier referenced ghostwritten series) maintain the same literary voice (ie: God's voice) throughout. Instead, each of the books of the bible are clearly written by different authors, as evidenced in their voice and writing style.That's what I meant when I asked, "Does god not have his own voice?" Because his literary voice is not present within the bible; the literary voices of his alleged representatives is.

  2. I appreciate your perspective, Laura. Many people feel like what you wrote. I've heard many arguments from many sides.At one point you question, "Does God not have His own voice?" For me, His voice is the Holy Spirit within me. When I quiet my mortal mind and let His voice within me speak… I'm led by Him, not myself or man. That's my experience.I do appreciate your thoughts on homosexuality as well. I've seen this scripture a few times recently: 26 For in union with the Messiah, you are all children of God through this trusting faithfulness; 27 because as many of you as were immersed into the Messiah have clothed yourselves with the Messiah, in whom 28 there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female; for in union with the Messiah Yeshua, you are all one. Galatians 3:26-28Going on the premise that we're made in GOD's image. I fully believe that scripture lists sexuality and other fornication in a way to say live morally. Don't be quarrelsome. When it's all out in the open, example, being promiscuous in public. Holding hands, hugging, etc is no big deal, It think. But, neckin, touching each other sexually, etc is going over the line. Just my thinking. Doesn't make it so… Just thinking in script here… lol I'm open minded… just trying live an upright life. If that even makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s