jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (58 posts)

Our Idea Of God Tells Us More

  1. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    about ourselves than about Him, attributed to Thomas Merton.

    A rather thought provoking quotation.  What does it tell us about the person who:

    Knows and understands the evil their god did or does, but writes it off to "God's ways are inscrutable" or "God can do whatever He wants and we should still worship Him" without becoming like Him?

    Knows the evil their God did or does, but ignores it in the pretense it didn't happen?

    Declares they are "God fearing" but also that they love their God?  Or does that common phrase actually free of any real meaning?

    Knows the evil their God did or does, accepts it as good and repeats it?

    Does not know the evil their God did or does - when seen refuses to accept or makes excuses that it wasn't as portrayed?  Changes the evil, in other words, to something more palatable?

    Or does what a person believes about their god say anything at all about them as a person?

    1. profile image0
      Rayne123posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well I believe God is just and merciful and I like most do not ignore the parts in the bible that speak of his wrath, or should I say deny it.

      I know what God can do and since he created the world I guess he can do what he sees fit. I do not have a problem with that. I believe that a criminal getting caught may be in the hands of God. He allows us our free will however we suffer the consequences at his hand.

      We may not even realize that our consequences may be at the hands of God, as some may not believe in it. Take OJ for example. He literally was acquitted for the murder of his wife and her boyfriend. He laughed, however look at him now, he dug his own hole and fell in it.

      So we may have law (which most of the time is unfair and unjust) however God sees all so he may be leading those that deserve it into the right hands.

      He is justified what he does and vengeance is the Lords and he will repay as said in the scriptures.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So what do you feel it says about you personally that you will look at the terrible, evil deeds of your god and decide that he can do whatever he wishes; that the knowledge of right and wrong we call "morality" does not apply to him?  But that you still have to worship and love him?

    2. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is a very good question, Wilderness and not one that as easily explained as it appears to be. The reason I say this is because the first thing I must always note is that the bible is sold as one book, but it is actually a collection of several books with several writers (hence why it is separated into books then each book into chapters). As a result of this, God is broken down and limited to at least 40 perspectives of who and what he is and does. With this in mind, it is easy for some people to find what they are looking for in the bible as dependent on what they feel they need in their own lives ( I know the popular term for this is cherry picking, but it is more of finding the author that resonates best for what we are looking for and our own perspectives). Now of course, given how the bible has been reinterpreted over the course of several hundred years as well as people's individual understanding of the bible in regards to context (since words have more than one definition and as such can mean different things in different books depending on culture and context as well as the desires of the writer) the bible has split down even more. With this being said, it is true that some Christians ignore the parts of the bible that contradict what they believe, but this is not the same as someone that recognizes the deeds of God (OT lat and punishment) but have been taught that Christ fulfilled the law and now we are living under grace. This also causes contention because there are some that still try to apply fulfilled (and thus completed law) as an overruling factor over grace..

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I understand what you're saying, but have a little different take on the subject.  I don't speak of "impressions" or "beliefs" of God's attributes: I speak of the actions and instructions actually witnessed by our ancient ancestors that wrote those books.  In that light, it's not so much looking for viewpoints that "resonate" with the reader, it is ignoring the reported facts that they don't understand.  It doesn't resonate?  You don't understand how such evil actions came from your god?  Ignore it and move on to the next book, which you might understand better.

        So what does that say about the people that take that tack?  Those that read of those unacceptable actions but ignore them because they don't fit with what they want to believe really happened?

        1. profile image0
          Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's not always that cut and dry. Yes, there are some that totally ignore the parts that don't agree with what they need, but at the same time, there are those that also reconcile the two. It's not ignoring it, it is understanding for some that the old stuff was completed with the death of Christ. Then again there are those who still try to apply the hardcore dogmatic judgment to today's time as a measure of scaring others into getting right just like they operate out of fear. Then there are those that need that interference.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Come, come, Deepes.  The genocide of Sodom and Gomorroh, including the innocent lives there, are NOT "completed with the death of Christ".  Neither is the death and condemnation of all first born Egyptian children and infants.

            Those were direct actions of God; Christ's death had no effect on them and didn't change one thing about them.

            Now it's true that the faithful can "reconcile" them.  They can decide there were no poor people in Sodom and Gomorrah to be part of the evil ones suffering genocide.  They can decide that the Egyptian children will be welcomed into heaven.  They can make up lots of stories that have no basis in the bible, but again, what does that say about them?  That they will rationalize what they don't like with spin and imaginative stories until it's OK once more?

            1. profile image0
              Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              With Sodom and Gomorroh, Egypt.. etc and all of the old testament atrocities (yes I said it) were destroyed during the period where they were considered under the law of Judgment (or the time where God was more hands on with dispensation of said justice.. so to speak). when Christ dies, it was for future generations to be under grace. I by no means am ignoring nor downplaying any of this (and I also am more speaking on what the bible states because I have no evidence to support the fact that all of this ever happened. I simply am quoting the bible and giving an idea of how some interpret the bible as a means of bridging the two testaments rather than throwing all of it out)

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                To me, that is a good example of reconciling.  God did terribly evil things in the past; by giving his son up he promises not to do it to us any more.  What that perfect being did in the past is therefore OK - it wasn't a mistake and anyone doing those kinds of things while demanding worship and telling us he loves us is NOT to be trusted, but it's OK.

                Like you, I accept the biblical description and interpretation thereof.  What does it then say about someone that will believe, worship and love a being whose actions have plainly shown them no better than Satan himself but now promises to be good?  They're not stupid, certainly, but what simple term might fit?  Gullible?  Desperate?  Uncaring?  Deceived?

                What does it say about someone who forms their belief around a rationalization of evil to make it acceptable?

                1. profile image0
                  Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, (and we may have to agree to disagree on this next point), This is similar to politics and following the laws here in the states. We may not totally agree with every law nor the punishments that fit the crimes (so to speak), But at the end of the day, we still understand that although we may be able to influence the laws and changing thereof to suit our perfect idea of what should be done, but ultimately, we cannot control or change them directly. (yes I know the difference between politics and religion, as it related to the existence thereof, but when you look at both philosophically they relate somewhat)

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Umm.  Yes and no.  Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but think there is a different "problem" with religious belief in this matter.

                    I see our ancient beliefs starting the religion, whichever one it is.  People at that time had a vastly different moral structure and it was very definitely reflected in their religion.  Of primary importance may be that violence, raw naked violence, was not only accepted it was the norm.  There are other things as well (slavery, child and female ownership, etc.) but violence is a huge one.

                    Since that time our moral structure has changed (for the better, I believe) but the old stories and writings haven't.  You can't rewrite the genocide of Sodom, the murder of the Egyptians or the children by bears as anything but what it was; evil, pure and simple, by our standards today. It might have been possible when the bible was written 1600 years ago, but it cannot truly be rewritten now.  The Book of Mormon might be considered such an effort, but percentage wise the following is tiny after 100 years.  Changes to holy scripture are not generally well accepted.

                    So.  The religion changes, the morals and ethics of the believers change, but they are stuck with the original writings that very plainly illustrate the mores of the particular god involved as barbaric and evil.  How that conundrum is resolved can, indeed, say something about the person doing the resolving. 

                    The person that accepts that evil as a part of themselves and continues it is a barbarian (probably a better word than evil as motive does count and they are, after all, doing the will of their god) and unwilling to grow morally.  Who is a very different person than the one that sees the evil and wrestles it somehow into something acceptable in their civilized world.  Who is, in turn a very different person than someone that sees it and simply pretends the words weren't there by ignoring it altogether. 

                    All of these reflect very different personalities and outlooks on life in general and I strongly suspect that the attitudes and reactions will carry over into their daily life.

                2. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I haven't read every post.
                  I just wanna interject here about what you said about God giving up his Son........
                  It wasn't as a promise that He wouldn't punish us ever again.   (And honestly, most of the things we do, we reap the consequences naturally anyway.  We can't blame God for every "evil" that befalls us;  lots of times we do it to ourselves or other people perpetuate evil upon us.
                  It was a promise that if we accept the Son,  we don't have to face eternal consequences for the sins we do (if we truly repent).    And it was a way of telling us that we can endure temptation;  and the temptations that we cannot avoid, the Lord can help us with those.   Jesus endured every temptation known to mankind (the Bible says),  so He is the perfect example for us to follow.

                  As far as God being evil or doing evil things..............that is just not possible.   Whatever He did, does, or will do,  is...........His business.    But if you'll notice in the Bible, in those days (and even in these days)  his followers'  fervent petitions to Him do affect Him.  He loves mankind.

                  As far as what that belief says about me..........yes, I think it says a lot.   I have no qualms saying that I follow Someone who's omnipotent, all-powerful, omniscient, and cannot imagine why everyone else wouldn't want to follow a Being like that.   Sure seems way smarter than following anyone or anything else..........

                  1. JMcFarland profile image89
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    any being that is omnicsent, omnipotent, and omnipresent is self-contradictory, and if something is self-contradictory then it is logically impossible.  I've never had a christian - professor or layperson reconcile the omni's and explain them in a way that makes logical sense.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps I was a little sloppy here, but then again, perhaps not.

                    Many people believe that Christ fulfilled the OT laws; laws that had caused God to punish severely.  When Christ came, those laws became a dead issue and presumably that means that we will not be punished for not obeying them.  Christs death is why we can eat pork, don't stone adulterers, wear multi cloth clothing, etc.  We aren't punished for those things any more because of Christ. 

                    Does that make sense - do you have a better understanding of what I was trying to say?  It is only a part of Christ accomplished, but it is there along with the "saving" you point out.

                    But God absolutely DID do evil things - by our modern standards of morality.  It isn't reasonable, not even a tiny amount, to kill an infant for the sins of the father, but that's exactly what God did to Egyptian children. 

                    You resolve that conundrum by saying God is outside our morals; that He has his own (or none at all) but that's OK because He is God.  He needn't follow man's sense of morality.  That goes back, it seems, to the first choice in the OP, and you are not alone in making that call.

                    Thank you for the answer.

  2. SwordofManticorE profile image75
    SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago

    Another worthless attack against the Christian.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Attack?  Why would you say that?

      Obviously the bible needs interpretation, and just as obviously everyone reads and interprets it differently.  I merely comment that how that interpretation is done reveals something about the interpreter and ask for your take on that.  I don't even limit it to the bible and Christianity, but include all religions and all theists as they all have a different idea of what their god is and what it has done.

      Or are you one of the ones that declare your god, your holy scriptures and your interpretation of those scriptures is the ONLY valid and correct concept in the world?

      How do you deal with the evil things your god has done, and what does it say about your personality and attitude you face the world with?

    2. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree. I don't view this as an attack against anyone. Wilderness was asking a question as it relates to how people interpret the bible and what it says about them in general. Wilderness didn't actually state what he thought of those people himself. Wilderness isn't like some of the others here.

      1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
        SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course you do.

        1. profile image0
          Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          SOM, What is it about this forum that you feel was an attack?

          1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
            SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you that blind that you cannot see what is going on here Deeps? It is just another attempt to promote atheism by mocking my Father. They are not here to seek truth, they think they already know it with their atheist views and your presence encourages them. Ponder on this.

            1. profile image0
              Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Blind? You do realize that you have actually just attacked me more with that one sentence than wilderness has done in this whole conversation? I was merely asking a question in an effort to understand why you see it as an attack as in specifically what part of it was attacking or mocking and why it is mocking (other than your apparent overall over sensitivity and defensiveness) You say my presence encourages them. Your presence here does no less than mine, especially considering that if what you say is true about them mocking and promoting atheism that you are taking the bait by being offended and responding in a manner that reflects anger, at which point you actually reflect what they think of most Christians.

              1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
                SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I didn"t mean to offend you Deeps, you are one of the very few clear headed Christians that I know on these hubs. My point is that it is a waste of time saying anything to an atheist when they makes hubs or forums like this. Don't get me wrong. I have atheist friends who love talking to me about God, but never in this manner. What I am saying is that I know what the agenda is when it comes to those who ask such questions as this forum one. I would give them the shirt on my back if they were naked. I would feed them if they were hungry. Shelter them if they were caught in bad weather, but never would I answer any of their questions about God once I have come to the realization of their intentions.

                1. profile image0
                  Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not a lot of offense taken. I was more confused as to why you would reply in that manner when I was trying to understand your perspective on the topic's offensiveness..

                  I'm not sure how much of our actual conversation you read, but Wilderness (from what I could tell) was actually asking questions trying to understand what I was really stating. He also was making statements that you and I both have stated as well.

                  I agree with you regarding having discussions with certain atheists, but at the same time, it is never a waste of time discussing things with someone that is seeking understanding. Wilderness has only mocked me once, but that was before he actually engaged me in conversation (which is no different from some of the others). Now, there are only two that are the same way still (one of whom i don't even engage anymore and the other one that I actually do have some fairly decent conversation with up to a point where i can see where I've reached the end of it and the ridicule comes back to the forefront)

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  SOM, you could not be more wrong.  I have no interest in mocking your God.  And while you may feel I'm mocking the Christian philosophy and rationale, I'm not interested in that either, and have no intention of doing so.  I'm not even particularly interested in your concept in what God is - I already have a pretty good understanding of the Christian viewpoint in that He is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, unchanging and loves people more than we can understand.

                  What I am interested in is people.  How they think, how they come to conclusions, and what place does rationalization vs truth occupy in their mind. 

                  When I read the Christian scriptures, however, I read of an unspeakably evil god; one whose actions clearly show the Christian God to be one so far removed from my ideas on morality that I wouldn't worship him for anything and that I could never, ever love at all. 

                  You, reading the exact same words, very obviously see something entirely different but I have zero idea as to how you get there.  As the version I see of the Christian god is a major stumbling block for me in either understanding and accepting Him as something to love and worship OR in understanding the Christian person at all, I seek information.  I really am interested in the reasoning of how you go from an evil creature fit only to reside in Hell to a loving God that takes care of us and wants our presence in heaven.

                  So, please, back off.  Either put up or shut up; either join the quest for knowledge or accept you neither have nor want any and keep your hate based opinions and insults to yourself.

                  1. SwordofManticorE profile image75
                    SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Since you put it that way, I would rather shut up. Btw, You dont know my belief in God and His eternal, and I dont hate you, nor have I insulted you. Your tone says alot. Peace

                  2. profile image0
                    Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this



                    I can understand why and how you would think this way, but there is another side to the story



                    Here is the other side to the story. If you stick to the OT, then that is all you will see, but there are different types  and categories of Christians as what the scriptures state. There are some that state that everyone deserves hell because we are all sinful creatures and they see all sins in terms as totally evil up to the point that they have set a standard that they cannot even live up to. Then you have universalists who state that when Christ went to the cross this basically defeats hell and that everyone will go to heaven. Then there are some who state that Christ's death only benefits those who believe in Christ and God. Then you have someone like me who simply is trying to live as moral and ethical of a life as I can because no matter what God will have the final say as to who will get in. (NOTE- all of this is working off of the premise that God is real. I know I have no proof that can convince you or anyone else that he is real).. Ultimately, If I keep living as best as I know how and show love and tolerance as well as understanding for others I can go to my grave knowing I did the best I could here on earth and will leave the rest to whatever happens next since the bible states that i will return to dust and I know that  dead flesh knows nothing once the functions of the body shuts down.



                    I don't think SOM's opinions are totally hate based. I think his opinions (rightfully so) are grounded in the fact that he has been attacked so many times (by both atheists and Christians) and that so many people mock and attack God that he has become more than a little tired of seeing it so with either side his reactions are at times reflex based on what he is used to. I personally don't totally blame him.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Another lie by a Christian.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Deepes:

    re; cyclical god
    Here I completely leave the word of fact and enter that of philosophy, mathematical constructs and pure thought with absolutely no real connection with any reality we know.  But, it's what we have, so here goes

    Premise:
    1) God is eternal and His timeline is infinite both directions. He has always existed and always will
    2) There are a very large, but limited "bits" of God.  Compare to atoms in our universe; numbers too large to express even as an exponent of an exponent, but not infinite.  I refuse to consider a God of either an amorphous, non-bit makeup OR with infinite bits.

    Given 2), there is a large but limited number of actions God can take, according to possible permutations of the "bits" He is composed of.
    Assign event A to the bad god, and event B to the good god, representing event periods in our historical timeline.   Add as many other events as you wish, but again limited by 2) and the analogous number of "bits" in our own universe.
    One specific event grouping, represented by ABGHQZ, (or as far as you wish to go) representing bad god followed by good god followed by whatever, will happen in 1 out of X possible event groups.  X might be 10, a thousand, a million a trillion or add as many zeros as you wish.  Whatever X is, in 2X event groups our particular event group of ABGHQZ will have happened twice.  In 20X event groups it will have happened 20 times and in an infinite number of event groups it will have happened an infinite number of times.  Make it all due to probability if you wish instead of an absolute 1 out of X; ABGHQZ will still happen an infinite number of times in an eternity.

    Anything that exists will be either cyclical or steady state, with no actions or events at all.  (Our future, dead, universe is an example of no events at all.  Entropy has maxed out, there is no motion and no interaction between individual "bits" or particles.

    God, in his already infinite time, has already created and destroyed an infinite number of universes, all identical down to the last atom.  Along with an infinite number of different universes, of course.  He has an infinite number of heavens and hells, each filled with an infinite number of souls.

    And God, in infinite time, has already gone through the AB cycle an infinite number of times.  It will happen again.

    The concept of infinity plays havoc with what we see as time, actions, events or most anything else.  At the same time, if God is not infinite, the question of what (who) caused His creation comes into play...

    1. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure there is something profound here. Unfortunately, math was never a strong suit of mine and as such this looks like Greek.



      Other than the question of what caused the creation of God, this kinda slipped over my head as well. If I understand you correctly, then you are saying that God has played the same scenario out over and over again, which could be taken to mean that he has replayed the exact same scenario that is in the bible over and over.. If this is the case, then I must ask where you have gotten this information from and what evidence is there to support this.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL  A little play with the mathematical concept of infinity.  Infinite time in this case, or what we call eternity.  Basically, it says that in infinite time anything and everything that can happen, will happen and furthermore it will happen an infinite number of times.  God has already created us trillions of times, has been both the "bad" and the "good" god to the same identical people over and over and over. 

        Infinity is an imaginary concept - one that we can (to some extent) manipulate with the tool called mathematics, but something that is so far beyond any human experience that it cannot truly be understood.  We just can't get a handle on it, not deep inside where it counts. 

        Here, let me give you a "feeling" for eternity.  Imagine that you are eternal and will never die.  That you need no nourishment (you can't die anyway) and will never "run down" as we do when we age.

        Your task is to walk around the world.  Around and around, until you've left a hard, deep trail in spite of everything the wind and rain can do to erase it.  Say, once around every 5 years or so.  You get bored, and stop to talk to everyone you meet.  You take time off to fish every stream on earth, and to ski every mountain 10 times over.  You partake of every food mentionable, 100 times for each meal.

        Through it all, you keep walking the same path, and it begins to become visible.  Mankind eventually dies out but you keep walking.  The air leaks away, drawn by a moon now so far away it is barely visible but you keep going.  The path is deeper now, several feet deep. 

        You walk, bored to tears with having tried every possible experience many, many times over a billion years of walking.  The earth is a dead hulk, without air, and the sun flickers and goes out.  Uncountable millions of years into the future the path, compressed only by your feet treading on it once every 5 years, finally reaches what used to be magma, now hardened into solid rock.  And you...you have taken the first tiny baby step towards eternity. 

        Are you sure you want to live for eternity?  No god could possibly be so cruel as the one that sentences you eternal life.

        1. profile image0
          Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here's the funny thing, If some peoples beliefs are correct then we will live forever regardless.. wither in paradise or in torment...LOL..

          I stopped thinking about what happens after death years ago. Got enough to deal with in life.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Indeed, eternal life is the whole goal and purpose to a great many.  Not how the live in the here and now; that is only a temporary road to the ultimate goal.  I think they neither understand or even think about what it would mean to be eternal.

            Like you, I have no concerns about the afterlife, if it exists. I do not see any way to affect it; what will be, will be.  There is plenty here to keep me going.

            But I just noticed I missed an earlier post; I must read it.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Replying to your earlier post; yes, I, too, am sometimes guilty of lumping people together.  At the same time, though, I often find it more convenient and speedier road to understanding to make some assumptions about any specific Christian. 

            I have come to understand in the past few years that there is even more variance than I had thought, but there is still a strong root that holds all of Christianity together.  It is almost impossible to believe in Christ (Christianity) without having seen and read the bible.  People will make differing interpretations (the topic of this thread, for instance) of both God and everything else in the bible, but it is a starting point. 

            And, sometimes, I go beyond that for I am just as human, just as fallible, as anyone else.  I know I should not, I know to watch for it, but I do it anyway.

            1. profile image0
              Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I can go along with this statement. It is easy to make some assumptions and work off of the premise of the ONE common foundational link between all Christians. I stress the word ONE because, as you can tell, A belief in Christ is sometimes the only thing that some Christians have in common. It's just like the fact that sometimes a lack of belief is the only thing that atheists have in common. I think the main issue with communication between the two is that the most vocal representatives of each side basically spoils the image and perception of the entire bunch. Because of this, it is difficult to enter into conversation without a slight preconceived notion of what and how the conversation is going to end.  For the record, I have thoroughly enjoyed this conversation with you. If more people were able to converse like this without the anger and preconceived accusations flying about then perhaps we can all increase understanding and acceptance of one another.

  4. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I haven't read entirely through the thread so, hopefully, this has already been brought up. I agree, that how someone interprets the chain of events presented in the Bible is more of a window into who we are than it is a window to the understanding of a deity. This goes all ways, in my opinion. Even those who don't believe give us a window into their minds when they argue against their interpretation.

    I will say that one goal I think we are meant to aspire to is to hold all things of equal value. To not judge harshly. So, in that respect, the theist has taken a stride in the same direction the atheist has. No judgment of the universe. Wonder and awe at the universe. But, we all appear to use our idea of how others perceive the book to judge each other. So, I don't know. Maybe there is something we are all missing at this point.

    1. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Always love seeing you post (even when we disagree). We did touch more on the overall issues that limit communication to a point, so we didn't necessarily make the point as eloquently as you did. Wilderness was trying to get an understanding of what others thought and I was the main one discussing it with him..

      Thanks for your input. I doubt I could have expressed it better myself

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks but, eloquent is something I'm pretty sure I'm not. I find it interesting because my take on the Bible is a simple progression of enlightenment as Man develops. Up through the gospels, at least. I see the tale end as Man attempting to grasp the new information. They get it right, at points; but being a radically new understanding means they get it wrong also, at times.

        Pondering God is easy. He doesn't talk back, he doesn't get in the way of anything, you get to think what you want when you want. But, pondering ourselves and putting others on the same pedestal once reserved for ourselves was the radical left turn none of us seems willing to take.

 
working