Honest to God: God's Box

By
   I find it ironic that the author thinks he is "freeing" God from Christian boxes by labeling Him as love and Being. To me, thinking of God as these things just made Him a whole lot smaller. Perhaps this is because my head is still spinning from all the beings and Beings we talked about last class. When the author said that God is Being, I got a picture of the universe riding on the back of a deity, much like the Japanese folklore of the world existing on the back of a tortoise. It made me think of God being limited to the confines of this universe, that He has to abide by all its rules in order to still exist. When the author said that God is love, I had this picture of God being stretched, pulled, and pushed by the whims of emotional human beings. Even Christians are not loving all the time, which means that they would not be in God all the time (according to the author). Emotions are fleeting, and if all decisions were based on how loving a person felt in that moment, our society would be in a giant wreck. Oh wait...

   The point is that this book had the complete opposite effect on me that the author intended. I did not see a loving God who is with us every second in love and Being, I saw a mystical whiff of the Star Wars force that wants everyone to be happy and kind. I'll be honest and say that I usually get a picture of God being "out-there," but not in the sense that He is uncaring. Our reality is made up of the physical and spiritual realms. The only reason I say God is "out-there" is because He is not a physical being. God is a spirit. He exists in this physical side of reality, but He does not depend on it or human relationships for survival. He is not unreachable by being "out-there" because He reached us first. He is active and involved everywhere.

   I suppose my biggest problem with this book is that the author shrank God. This god in the book is not all-powerful, all-loving, or all-good. It just is. It doesn't desire a relationship with you, it just wants you to know its there. It doesn't care about what you do so long as it's done in love. Also, sin? What's sin? And Satan? Never heard of him. Yeah, great job pulling God out of the box, Robinson.

P.S. I commented on Ethan and Will's post.

Comments

  1. Ethan LafontApril 16, 2018 at 5:11 PM


    It seems like he wants to create a god that fits with modern life. I definitely don't agree with it, but the god he has created seems very un intrusive and only really something that should be a distant emery to make you feel good. I can see where this is a desirable god to create and believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zelda PeachApril 16, 2018 at 6:13 PM

    I do not know if I would go so far as to say that "God is love" shrinks God, but you are right in the fact that God is not just love. He is definitely so much more than just a “Being” with a big "B" or infinite love, He is both those things and more. When reading your post, I remembered what Dr. Mashburn said about how your reaction to reading this book tells you more about yourself and your personal feelings than the actual material. From my perspective I definitely think he is right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael TurnerApril 16, 2018 at 10:07 PM

    The thing with this book and anything else like it, is that God cannot fit in with mankind's expectations. If God was understandable, then why call him God. He would simply become lowercase "god" like so many other religions have become.

    We get the "out there" imagery lodged in our minds because the Bible portrays it as such. God is not unreachable as evidenced by Christ. Yet, it is made clear that God is not to be placed in a mould for society to understand. Isaiah 55:8 & 9 says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are you ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

    God does not exist to be understood or limited by faulty human logic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will BradyApril 16, 2018 at 10:10 PM

    “Well, I could leave God in the ‘Christian box’ of unchanging truth where I know He’ll expect me to preach the hard facts of hellfire and the corruption of man. OR, I could remove Him from the confines of unchanging doctrine, show everyone that He just does things to make them feel happy and spiritual, tell them that worshipping just to feel spiritual is bad and that they can avoid this by doing other things just to feel spiritual, tell everyone that God is love and love is relative so therefore God is relative, and I’m an atheist by this point but at least people feel good.” ~Bishop Robinson

    Really though, why leave God in the box of unchanging truth when you can see the benefits to making him a magic happiness prayer?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Honest Reaction to Reading "Honest to God"

By
Originally I said in my last blog post that I liked this book, but I have sort of changed my mind. It is not that I hate it or anything, it is just weird and I don’t really agree with what John Robinson is saying most of the time. I appreciate that he is trying to write something different and new, but my problem is that some of the ideas are just a little too radical for my taste, and I disagree with him a lot. In the seventh and last chapter of the book, Robinson himself acknowledges his radicalness and writes about how he knows that this type of thought on religion is controversial. He goes on to write how all great thinkers were seen as controversial when they first started and says, “Every new religious truth comes as the destroyer of some other god”. To further prove this point, he uses the example of how Socrates was condemned as an atheist for not believing in multiple gods, and while it is true that Socrates was a great philosopher who was not seen as so when he was alive, I ...
Read more

Raphael and a man walk into Eden...

By
I'll just start off by saying Raphael is one of the three named archangels in Scripture we hear the least about, and I thoroughly enjoy just reading and seeing his name pop up. Regardless, I want to touch on Adam's recounting of his own..."birth". Take that with a grain of salt as Adam was not physically born, but rather he simply became. In truth, we should all be able to give a similar account to their first memory of consciousness and fully aware. Adam was created, but he realized he could walk, talk, and speak without first learning. Imagine being able to think clear thoughts in your native language and be a functioning individual right out of the womb. It's an incredible thought, and Adam can give a recall of this like it were yesterday...which it might have been, who knows? Aside from that, Adam could even give an account to Eve's creation. The Bible says nothing pertaining to this matter so this is where Milton does a bit of adlibbing and writes around ...
Read more

Extra blog

By
OK so, honors project! Honestly I really loved it as a whole. I said this already in the video, but I feel like I personally could've done better. I just feel like I didn't have enough time to completely process some questions and be able to give my best responses. I really enjoyed reading the O'Connor piece, which I think was everyone's favorite anyway. I love narrative stories like that, but honestly I'm glad I got to be in the Russell group. I feel like that group was the easiest to argue and answer from, honestly. As a whole, I would love to do a project like this again in later semesters. It was a lot of fun and time FLEW by.
Read more