Hubris of God Before Man
THIS ENTRY IS AN OPINION: If you are religiously close-minded then I would suggest that you DO NOT read this post. This post contains thoughts that are counter to MANY organized doctrines and could be taken as an attack on an individuals’ faith. This post is in fact not an attack on organized religion, but rather an analysis on the way we view religion and the morals and ethics that spring from them.
Does anyone find that it is very ironic that if god gave man free will that he would then limit that freedom with the commandments? Which is it? Free will or limited will as dictated by a set of 613 commandments? (Yes, there are actually 613 commandments even though the top 10 get all the press. Ask you priest, minister or rabbi, it is true. In fact, the Judaic Bible, the Torah (the five books of Moses or Pentateuch), when you convert the Hebrew letters into numbers (Hebrew uses its’ letter as numbers as well) it is the number 613, for the 613 commandments.) Interesting really, the Bible is nothing more than a great list of restrictions of freedoms that we are supposed to cherish. Yes it is dressed up in some really interesting stories and lots of sex (all the begetting and begatting) and parables and stuff, but really, it is just a great list of restrictions.
Yet here we are in a world (well at least the western society) that creates its’ laws based on the idea that the Bible is a guide for moral living. But is it really? Or should we as a society be willing to throw away the long held biblical beliefs for some more modern idea of what it is that can safely and peacefully hold a society together?
I think that in part we are trying to do so. In fact you can look at the moral divide in this country and know how people would stand on that statement right off. The Left is for looking into new ideas about morals and ethical living, the Right is holding tight to the biblical tenets that are already set forth, and looking to expand them.
But here is we have another question, if god let man have free will and man was the actual author of the Bible (ok, I will give you through proxy here for the sake of avoiding the divine revelation problem) could man then write what they wanted or slant the writing the way they wanted. Man is after all fallible and it is possible that there may have been some not all together altruistic motivation behind the words. (For those who are fans of the King James Bible, its ever word was confirmed with prayer, I should remind you that Martin Luther was not happy with it, and ultimately we have the same problem after all.)
Now we call into play the value of the Bible as the literal word of God. Therefore what is the point in using it as the basis of a moral and ethical code. After all, there are other codes of ethics that we live by. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (Hypocrites was not basing his code on the Bible) and then there is the Code of Hammurabi, good if a tad outdated (said with a wide grin). That is not even going into Eastern philosophies that seen by a neutral observer could be considered more civil and progressive.
So, who is really doing the commanding around here, Man or God. If it is God, then where is the updated commandment tell us that indeed we do have free will to decide for ourselves how we should morally and ethically run our lives? I’m waiting…
I find it interesting that the Right would have a hard time dealing with a community of people who ascribed to true free will. I would be certain that many of the members of AFF would find such a community appealing. But it would not fit in with the society at large and thus would be relegated to “commune” status. We saw this happen during the late 60’s and early 70’s. They did not fair well.
But what would a society look like that ascribed to free will? Well it would look a lot like anarchy for the first few years. If we were to start such a movement today and abolish all laws there would be a bloody mess for a while. But things would eventually shake out. There would indeed be a rule. That rule would be a very simple one, “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Yes, it is a golden rule after all, but the result would be Darwinian in the extreme. Those who could not adapt and survive with this one simple rule would wind up dead. Those around poor dead Fred you find that the rule is self-enforcing and would learn by his example.
Over time however new rules would be adopted naturally. These new rules could then be codified, but not for the purposes of enforcement, but as record. The world would look completely different in three generations and may be a more peaceful and safer place to live. Now who is writing the new commandments?
If all religion was invented to give comfort to those who could not handle the unexplainable, then religion would be turned on its’ ear as a new paradigm is erected in it’s place. I do not know what that new paradigm would be but I could guess.
If I were to guess what the new paradigm replacing religion would be I would have to say science. The trust and faith in science would replace the long outdated beliefs of 2000 years and offer it’s more modern approach (and one would have to assume flexible) to living in this modern world. There are scientists working on these very issues though I suppose you would not hear much about that. It is after all contrary to the Bible so the airtime would be limited.
God gave man free will and thus resigned himself to second place in terms of the hierarchy of heaven. If god were bound by the rules he has offered as bait for humans to swallow, then he could not possible rule. And since he has ultimately unbound man then man will eventually do as he wants and gods word will fade. It is the hubris of God to think that he can cork his own creation in the long run. Besides, I do not see any evidence that he has been enforcing even the shallow rules he “set down”.
Looks to me like man will ultimately rein in heaven, even if it is upon this Earth.
Note: If you are asking why this entry could possibly pertain to a site like AFF, well let me make it clear. The Right are not real happy about people who are sexually promiscuous. The fact that a site like this exists at is not really to their liking. Sexual morality and sexual ethics would obviously be part of the change in society as it progresses, thus this entry has everything to do with AFF and it’s members.
Note: I am not say that we should disband the government right now or enact civil unrest or even not give our wholehearted support for our civil government. I am postulating on things that may happen in the future and a basis for that action. The end of the world is not coming any time soon, I do not hear trumpets blowing. So, stay calm and watch as the world shapes itself around us. And if you wish to exacerbate change, do so within the laws and rules set out by today’s society. It’s safer that way and you will not end up in jail.