Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Faith, God, Religion

Is God a Good Father?

Nate

In my last post, discussion turned to the question of whether or not we need God. One of my regular contributors, William, posted the following comment, and I felt it deserved its own post:

I am just having problems understanding whether humans “need” a god.

Do humans “need” a father? it may be beneficial if it’s a good father, but we can see many who get along fine who have not had a father, so “need” is the wrong term.

And what if that father is never around, left before you were born, and only left a letter to you explaining (not always in the easiest or most direct of terms) how he expects you to behave and promises that he’ll take care of you and promises to severely punish you for disobedience or for leaving him?

is that a good father? is that a father we need? isn’t it laughable that such a father could even begin to threaten the child for “leaving him” (since the father clearly left the child) not to mention how absurd it is to think that such a father actually does anything to really take care of the child?

I’m having a hard time understanding how we’re ingrained to “need” such a father, or why we’d even call such a father good?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Nate

543 thoughts on “Is God a Good Father?”

  1. JudahFirst … I posted before I read your comment. It seems we’re both explaining the same thing, although I don’t agree with the part about the trash heap. From my reading, this is not necessarily fact. But I’m not going to hard state it.

    Like

  2. Im so tired, I mean that, I just want God to accept us, were all messed up in the sense that were trying to work it out, or at least we’re trying to be active in living. I mean all that I have wrote before, all of it. Im never going to figure it out without God

    Like

  3. nan, JudahFirst, thanks. that is also my understanding.

    and that’s also my point. jesus used a place on earth, the greek name for a place on earth. It seems to me that gehenna was the term used because the jews didnt use that term.

    my under standing, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, is that the hebrews and and ancient Mesopotamian viewed the afterlife as an underground dwelling, where their comfort or rest depended on how many family members they had returning to their graves or retelling stories about them.

    If they didnt have relatives, then they fell deeper into the pit and essentially vanished… that is, if i understand it correctly.

    Like

  8. Willaim, You asked me, what makes you believe in the biblical god despite the problems with the bible?

    and i shared that it was a fear of God, but I wanted to know why you asked?

    Like

  10. Yeah Im fine 🙂 Im just tired, in more ways than one 🙂 but I’ll be here tomorrow, ive got work today, and commitments, so ill be back to the same questions after

    Like

  11. well hang in there. It will all workout. It always does. Do your best. I know that’s part of the problem because we feel like we could and should always do more, but we’re only human, with only human bodies and minds. If god made us, he’d be aware of that.

    And search out the best you can. I think we should be fair, consistent and honest, though. If we make any mistake out of the best of intentions and out of our best human efforts, then what more could we have done?

    Hang in there and be brave, man. what do you see? what does it look like to you? follow the signs and never quit looking for them. what more can you do, than that?

    Like

  12. ah, well I am just curious why people believe anymore. I sued to, but that was before I saw the problems.

    Do you keep garlic in your pockets in case dracula is real?

    Like

  14. thanks, I really appreciate that, i don’t understand why this isn’t one of the only questions.people seem to go through the day just not focusing on this, but I guess thats my own ignorance showing 🙂 I will always be here, I will never take the easy way out. so don’t worry 🙂 I couldnt do that anyway, since God judges that, but also, Id be wasting myself and not caring or loving others.

    Like

  15. Even if God wasn’t there I wouldn’t do that, since its selfish, and I should focus on cering for others, whether Providence exists or not 🙂

    Like

  17. William, “but that’s really beside the point. once you step back and really look at it, it’s no more believable than the greek mythology, and everything starts to make much more sense.”

    Justin Martyr , one of the early Church Fathers agreed with you when he wrote , “And when we say that the Word (Logos) which is the first begetting of God, was begotten without intercourse,—Jesus Christ, our Master,—and that he was crucified, and was dead, and rose again and ascended into heaven, we bring forward no new thing beyond those among you who are called Sons of Zeus.

    Like

  18. William, you wrote:

    “my under standing, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, is that the hebrews and and ancient Mesopotamian viewed the afterlife as an underground dwelling, where their comfort or rest depended on how many family members they had returning to their graves or retelling stories about them.

    If they didnt have relatives, then they fell deeper into the pit and essentially vanished… that is, if i understand it correctly.”

    I cannot correct you because I’ve never heard of all of that. I do know that the Jews believed in soul sleep after death. I don’t know what they believed about judgment. But then, I once heard it said if you ask 10 Rabbi’s what they believe about something you will get 20 answers. hehehe

    Like

  19. yeah, and I cant even cite where i read that. And I cannot even begin to comment on it’s credibility, so please, take that for what it is. that;s one reason I was sure to word it doubtfully.

    Like

  20. UnkleE I think you’re right in that we may as well cease. I think you’re just dismissing the issues and pretending tending that they’re not significant. at least we agree there are indeed problems. and I guess you think i’m being too literal and missing the overall point.

    Hi William. I don’t have any opinion on whether you are “being too literal and missing the overall point”, I am just answering your questions. I think we start to impute motives to the other person and denigrate them when we find we cannot convince the other person, and I don’t think that is helpful.

    I think you have done this when you say “I think you’re just dismissing the issues and pretending tending that they’re not significant.” Why accuse me of “pretending” when most people would recognise I am very sincere even if they think I’m mistaken? Why use phrases like “dismissing the issues” when I have gone to some length to explain what I think and to demonstrate that I have seriously studied the matter.

    It was the same with kcchief1, who commented: “I think you have explained everything away in just one post as I knew you would.” Dismiss, explain away, what do they mean, other than that I have offered evidence that you two apparently don’t accept? Why say that stuff? Why not just say “I don’t agree with you”?

    Please understand I am not angry or upset, just feeling like these things need to be said. You are both decent people, or I wouldn’t bother.

    I also recognize that the OT is no longer in affect, i even believed that as a believer. But the NT still references the OT as a tutor and that it is a forerunner of the NT, presumably as some evidence of god, of jesus, and their nature. so I still think the errors in the OT cant be so easily discarded simply because they’re problematic or the first edition, so to speak. I realize the problems dont bother you as they have me, although i dont understand why, since you and I agree there are errors.

    Don’t think the problems don’t bother me, because I have pondered them, agonised over some of them, on and off for something like 40 years. They just weren’t what I was talking about here.

    The conclusion I am coming to is (1) my faith depends on the NT, not the OT, (2) if I accept the OT as an historian would (i.e. a record of what people thought or believed at the time, or felt compelled to write at the time, with errors and limited perspectives at times, etc), it is just as useful to my understanding of Jesus as if it was inerrant, (3) it can still be “inspired” if we use that word in its normal sense, and (4) it may be much more than the historians conclude while still not inerrant. So it is an issue I am researching still (I have just bought 2 new books by scholars to help me), but it isn’t fundamental. So I don’t discard it, it is just secondary to my faith and the matters we were discussing.

    So, 469 comments last time I looked, this will be 470. I think I will suggest you and I call it a day for now (unless you have something important still to say – I don’t), but I will nail a gold sovereign to the mast for the person who hits 500! 🙂

    Best wishes.

    Like

  21. unkleE, I can’t speak for William, but the way you spoke to me came across to me as very condescending. You were never wrong and I was never right. I told you half way through our posts back and forth we should just end it. I knew you were always going to be right in your mind. When you asked me to give you examples of redaction and The Church banning the bible from commers, I did just that. I wasn’t searching for award winning examples to porve you wrong, just examples to show these 2 things existed. I think WIlliam and certainly I have tried to leave some room for debate. But you did not. Your word had to be final and you had to be right. Is this a game where you keep score and put another notch on your holster when you think you’ve shot down another non-believer ? What is your mission here ? To always be right or try to show a non-believer the light ?

    All you have to do is admit you’re searching like the rest of us and you really don’t have all the answers. How about exerting a little humility in your posts ? You almost did in your last post to William. You said to him, “Don’t think the problems don’t bother me, because I have pondered them, agonised over some of them, on and off for something like 40 years.” What you have said elsewhere in your posts and to me is,” So better to start with the Bible as a bunch of historical documents, in which case all the apparent errors and inconsistencies don’t matter.” And yet unkleE any troubling points of scripture I shared with you, you trivialized.

    I don’t even want you to answer my response. I will consider it as your turn to prove you are right again. Just realize you aren’t always right and we aren’t always wrong. This isn’t a game and we’re not here to keep score. We have concerns about scripture and apparently you do too. I share this with no disrespect intended, I’m just tellin it like I see and feel it. Thanks for your time.

    Like

  22. unkleE, in point #2, you wrote: if I accept the OT as an historian would (i.e. a record of what people thought or believed at the time, or felt compelled to write at the time, with errors and limited perspectives at times, etc)

    What puzzles me about this statement is why would you accept the OT as a record … with errors and limited perspectives … and not see the NT in the same way?

    All we know about Jesus comes from the gospel writers who, like the writers of the OT, undoubtedly “felt compelled to write.” Why would there not be the same errors and limited perspectives in their writings? Is not the NT also a “record of what people thought or believed at the time?”

    Methinks you are applying one set of standards to the OT and another set to the NT.

    Like

  23. JudahFirst,

    Sorry to go back to a much earlier comment, but I’ve been away from all the excitement today. 🙂

    You mentioned that the Abraham sacrificing Isaac story was just another example of God kind of playing to people’s assumptions (my words, not yours), because they expected a bloodthirsty, vengeful God.

    Here’s my question: Why do you think the people of Abraham’s time expected that kind of God? Why did God have to take so long to correct so many misconceptions? How did all those misconceptions come to be in the first place?

    Thanks

    Like

  24. To Nate and the entire group. I have enjoyed for the most part reading and partisipating in this blog. There are times when comments get heated and I want to apologize if I have offened anyone in this group including unkleE. I am searching and learning like the rest of you. Sometimes when I am confronted about my feelings , I will be blunt and share them. I did this today. I try and respect others feelings as well so if I have offended you, let me know and I will humbly apologize.

    Like

  25. unkleE, KC, William,

    If you guys don’t mind me chiming in just a bit here, I think y’all may be talking past one another just a bit.

    UnkleE brings up some good points about the quality of the NT manuscripts. At least in my studies, I haven’t found too many reasons to doubt the versions we have today. That’s not to say they’re perfect — the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is most likely a late addition to John. There are several other passages that are also suspect.

    But overall, it seems pretty good. In some ways, that almost troubled me more, because it meant some of the consistency issues were probably original to the texts.

    At the same time, KC and William brought up some good points about the OT in particular. It’s pretty well agreed upon that it was redacted, perhaps quite heavily.

    Anyway, I don’t think any of us are that far off from the facts in these cases — we just part ways over what the facts mean. UnkleE is not very bothered by textual problems, but we are. That’s the major difference, and it’s not likely one we’re going to settle with one another.

    Feel free to keep discussing it, if you like. I just thought I’d weigh in a little, since I don’t really think the two sides are as far apart as it was starting to seem.

    Thanks for all the comments! Who’d have thought they’d get this high? 🙂

    Like

Leave a comment