You questioned my statement "Everything wrong (IMO) with condemning or denying God because your wondering doesn't bear the fruit you want it to."
I picked the words "condemning or denying" fairly carefully. I didn't say rejecting, or disagreeing with, or disbelieving, or choosing differently from.
What I was trying to address, obviously inadequately, was people who basically say "God has to meet up with my standards, he doesn't, so he doesn't exist" or "God lets innocent babies die therefore he must be evil." People who in their wondering about God set up their own judgmental criteria and then, when God doesn't meet those criteria, not merely rejecting or deciding not to believe, but actively condemning or denying. To do so requires the individual not only to disbelieve in but to actively judge God because God doesn't comply with their notions of what God should be. To me that is absurd. If God does, indeed, exist, I think it is self evident that God has different standards of behavior than men do, else God would be nothing more than another human, which would deny his Godness. (I realize after writing that that this is much like what the Greek conception of the Gods was like, but let's not get into that since nobody today, I think, actively follows the ancient Greek religions.)
Interestingly, some of these people who condemn God for not living up to their staidards are the same people who argue that God is merely a construct of men, and then condemn God for allowing evil. I have never been able to figure out how they can hold a nonexistent construct responsible for acting wrongly -- it's like writing a story about a fictional character and then blaming the character for doing something bad. Nonsensical. |
