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.
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:
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.