posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 11:10 PM
It’s possible to love unconditionally without liking unconditionally; if you don’t believe me, ask your mother. She doesn’t like
everything you do or agree with all your decisions, but she still loves you with all her heart. In this context, I hope to engage in a wee bit of
blasphemy and discuss a few of the things I don’t like about the Almighty - a.k.a. the Lord our God, the Master of the Universe, the Creator, our
Father who art in heaven, etc., etc. I know some of you more fervent Christians out there might view this article as an abominable affront to
morality, but if God loves us unconditionally without liking all that we do, isn’t it possible for us to do the same? Christianity teaches that
Jesus loves me, but I’m sure they’re times he doesn’t exactly like me.
What I don’t like about God is His ambiguous doctrines and needlessly aloof style of personal communications. His vagueness with His edicts has
hopelessly divided humanity into thousands of religions and denominations; wouldn’t it be more logical to employ a universal thesis for His people?
God could create a wondrous miracle tonight in every city in every town in the entire world where He candidly explains why we’re here and what He
hopes of us. Wouldn’t that be nice? Humans battle to the death over what happens to us when we die...but all of it could be avoided (or
dramatically curtailed) if God took the time to be a little more clear with His instructions. And if God truly loves us and hopes for us to avoid
sinning, wouldn’t it be logical for Him to explain to His children what those sins are? Because that’s one of our biggest hurdles:
Understanding what constitutes a sin. There are Jewish sects that feel divinely compelled to expand Israel’s borders, Christian sects
who’ve declared that heaven is only reserved for those who’ve become born again followers of Jesus, and as we all know, an unfortunate minority of
Muslims who find morality in terrorist attacks on civilians. Each sect is absolutely convinced that their interpretations of God’s will is entirely
correct, which leads to millions of deaths and millions of conflicts. The Old Testament conflicts with the New Testament; the theology of
Christianity conflicts with that of Islam. Hinduism conflicts with monotheism; Buddhism conflicts with the statutes and edicts of the other major
religions. Most of the major religions are unanimous in the belief that God took the time to speak to our forefathers so clearly He’s not
adverse to the concept of Deity-to-sapiens communications. Then...why are we being snubbed? Back in Biblical times - when the entire human
population was probably just a few million - prophets and wise men were holding daily tête-à-têtes with the Almighty. Now, with billions of people
on earth, God refuses to speak directly and clearly to His minions. The end result is confusion, carnage, and chaos.
If I were on God’s divine advisory counsel, my suggestion would be simple: Tell us clearly and succinctly what to do. I know, I know -
certain folks will argue that the Almighty already has told us what to do, in the form of the Holy Bible. But which Bible? And which interpretation?
According to tradition, Judaism got its start some 5,000 years ago and the Jews seem pretty confident that their interpretation of the Old Testament
is accurate, as is its notions of morality. The Christians appear highly convinced that a fellow named Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago was the actual
son of God and that his instruction manual (which was written about 1,900 years ago) is precisely correct. The Muslims seem awfully positive that
Mohammad, who lived about 1,400 years ago, was the last and greatest prophet and the key to God’s disposition is buried in the Koran. The birth of
Hinduism and the Hindu holy books (Vedas) are impossible to determine; Buddha lived 2,500 years ago and the origins of Hinduism was a mystery even
back in his day. Still, about 900 million Hindus appear fairly sure that their polytheistic vision of the Almighty is the most accurate. And within
all these holy books are a limitless number of interpretations; in fact, some of the most vicious religious wars were fought among those claiming to
be of the same faith!
Furthermore, whichever holy book a person ends up following is usually the byproduct of nepotism and indoctrination. It’s not a coincident that
most of the Jews in the world had Jewish parents or that most of the Hindus in the world had Hindu parents. And most of the religious that have
proven successful require its followers to make a concerted effort to “teach” his or her children how and why this religion is the one true faith.
I know that conversions do occasionally happen, but they’re the exception rather then the norm. If it’s true that only the followers of one
specific faith will be allowed entry to heaven, then entrance to the hallowed corridors of the Almighty is largely dependent on the biological lottery
Is this fair - that our best hope for understanding right from wrong is dependent upon being born into the right faith and following the best
millennium-plus-old holy book? And is it truly fair for a God to hold His people accountable for the rules and regulations they’re not even aware
exist? This seems to me a highly dubious way of running a galaxy. One of the generalized tenants of Western law is that ignorance of a statute is no
excuse for an infraction, but at least our civil and criminal statutes are public record - and if your interpretation of a law’s meaning differs
from the magistrate, you can argue your side in court. I somehow doubt that the Creator would allow a soul to wander into His heaven, arguing that
the rules and decrees of an all-powerful, all-knowing entity were amiss. I doubt that the perceived lack of specificity of a divine statute would
sway God’s judicial rulings.
But His rules are vague. And there is a lack of specificity. If there weren’t, there wouldn’t be so many conflicting religions, faiths, sects,
branches, beliefs, and denominations. It’s not fair, it’s not just, and it’s not right.
And I don’t like it one bit.