Are there any Catholics who believe the stories but dislike the God?

Merry Prankster

I started reading the bible yesterday for fun and right from the outset was struck not only by the ridiculousness of the stories but also the tyrannical nature of God.

Right there in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve shows God to be cruel and vindictive. Adam and Eve are duped by the serpent into eating from a forbidden tree (why did God put it there in the first place?).

The penalty for Eve, and all women:

'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'

The penalty for Adam:

'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.'

Also, they now both feel shame about their nakedness, and they will no longer have the chance to live forever. Quite a penalty for eating an apple - I though this guy was all about forgiveness.

This led me to wonder if there are people who believe the bible but have a problem with the character of God? Why does belief seem to automatically entail an unquestioning devotion to such a capricious, tyrannical figure?

lazygal

There was a poster a while back claimed to be an atheist Christian or Catholic. From what I gather, it means you can have the church trimmings like the ceremonies and head off to mass to show your children the one true faith, while reconciling this with knowing that the miracles and stuff are all nonsense.

Skrynesaver

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Why does belief seem to automatically entail an unquestioning devotion to such a capricious, tyrannical figure?

"Treason never prospers, for if it did none dare call it treason"

The fear of God seems to be a large component of the belief systems, somewhat like the fear of father figures in primitive societies, this may be related.

Duck Soup

Because the function of the Bible - of most religious tomes - is to reflect and reinforce the prevailing morality at the time. Which, despite most religions' claims of eternal truths and values, tend to change over time and get reflected in the religious documents.

So the God [read: authority] of the Old Testament comes down like a hammer - both unequivocal and frightening - because the moral codes laid down needed to be obeyed by not just the urbane city dweller, but the goat-herder halfway up a mountain, 500 miles away from civilisation. The lesson of the stories is 'Follow these instructions to the letter or you're in a world of pain."

Note that as order is more settled during Roman times in the Middle East, the tone of the stories become gentler, more persuasive [parables, for example] and a whole less smiting going on.

Peregrinus

If by "believe the stories" you mean "treat the stories as reliable journalistic accounts of events as they actually occurred", probably not. Fundamentalist biblical literalism is more of a Protestant thing. I'm not saying that there are no Catholic biblical literalists, but (a) there are not many, (b) they are pretty marginal figures, and (c) the same mentality that leads them into fundamentalism probably prevents them from hating God, at least consciously. (As for what goes on their unconscious, well, if they don't know, how would I?)

But if by "believe the stories" you mean something like "take the stories (and church teaching generally) seriously" then, yes I suspect this is not uncommon. The tortured Catholic is a stock figure in literature - Grahame Greene made a respectable career out of writing about him, and seems to have been one himself. And while literature is literature, it's not necessarily entirely removed from reality. Anger at God is quite common, and it makes more sense to be angry at a God you do believe in than at one you don't believe in.

silverharp

It seems some Catholics and others try to shift the blame onto the iron the folk that it was their view of god. But it seems a to be a tactic to reconcile the fact that Christians don't like the god that's painted there either . the idea that a god would allow such confusion is absurd. If god was able to present himself 2000 years ago as a hippy pacifist he could have done that in the first place.

Merry Prankster

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anger at God is quite common, and it makes more sense to be angry at a God you do believe in than at one you don't believe in.

Anger at God might be quite common, but the believers are still willing to play the game.

I'm always struck when I read about people praying that their loved one's will be found safe etc. The very act presupposes that God intervenes in terrestrial affairs, which begs the question: why did God allow the loved ones to be placed in danger in the first place, and why will he intervene only if one begs him?

There was a plane crash recently where a number of people survived but sustained terrible injuries. Many family members thanked God for 'looking after the survivors.' Talk about Stockholm Syndrome!

galljga1

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I started reading the bible yesterday for fun

Prankster, you need to get out more.

Merry Prankster

galljga1 wrote: »

Prankster, you need to get out more.

Too true! I've been thinking about writing a comedy set in Heaven, figured it would be helpful to do some research. It's left me a bit depressed though; I now realise I can never match the comedic genius of the original source.

Peregrinus

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Anger at God might be quite common, but the believers are still willing to play the game.

Surely you have to be willing to play the game before you can be angry at God?

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I'm always struck when I read about people praying that their loved one's will be found safe etc. The very act presupposes that God intervenes in terrestrial affairs, which begs the question: why did God allow the loved ones to be placed in danger in the first place, and why will he intervene only if one begs him?

You are struck that people who are desperately concerned for the lives of people they love pray for them? Seriously? I would have thought it was a fairly commonplace observation.

It seems to be obvious that it's perfectly possible to pray for the safety of someone you love and at the same time wonder why God allowed them to be put in danger in the first place and at the same time be angry at God because of this. There's no contradiction there at all; it's simply an illustration of the fact that people are capable of feeling more than one thing at once which, as I say, is a commonplace observation, and one by no means confined to questions involving God.

Merry Prankster

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to be obvious that it's perfectly possible to pray for the safety of someone you love and at the same time wonder why God allowed them to be put in danger in the first place and at the same time be angry at God because of this. There's no contradiction there at all; it's simply an illustration of the fact that people are capable of feeling more than one thing at once which, as I say, is a commonplace observation, and one by no means confined to questions involving God.

If a father allowed his child to wander into a dangerous situation and would only intervene if people begged him to, he'd be strung up. Not worshipped and adored.

recedite

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Are there any Catholics who believe the stories but dislike the God?

Why would anyone believe something when there is no evidence for it?
Two reasons really;
1. Something nice, and they really, really want it to be true.
2. On the other hand, something not so nice, but if it turned out to be true, it would be a really harsh penalty for those who hadn't believed in it.

Heaven and Hell. If you can't like the god, fear him.

Fleawuss

Wrong forum to be looking for Catholics. RCism is risible. Only the weak minded believe religion any more.

Nodin

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I started reading the bible yesterday for fun and right from the outset was struck not only by the ridiculousness of the stories but also the tyrannical nature of God.

Right there in Genesis, ..............

If you get more than half way through Genesis, you're a harder man than me, and should be yourself a jar.

Peregrinus

Merry Prankster wrote: »

If a father allowed his child to wander into a dangerous situation and would only intervene if people begged him to, he'd be strung up. Not worshipped and adored.

recedite wrote: »

Why would anyone believe something when there is no evidence for it? . . .

Fleawuss wrote: »

Wrong forum to be looking for Catholics. RCism is risible. Only the weak minded believe religion any more.

These statements are kind of pointless and irrelevant in the context of this thread. The OP asks if there are believers who are angry with God. These statements present arguments against belief in God in the first place, but pretty much by definition believers haven’t found those arguments persuasive, so the suggestion that they can help us understand how believers regard God is pretty much a non-starter.

Merry Prankster, your contrast between "worshipping and adoring" the father figure and wanting to "string him up" is a false dichotomy. You seem to assume that it's impossible to feel both things at once, whereas your OP asks whether it is possible There is no point in asking the question if, a priori you take the answer to be "no".

And, for the record, it's perfectly possible to feel both things at once. In fact, in the analogical example you give, it would be entirely unsurprising if the child concerned both adored his father and wanted to string him up. You need to have an extraordinarily one-dimensional view of human nature not to regard that combination of feelings as not only possible but commonplace.

If we rephrase the question as, is it possible to feel the same conflicting feelings towards God as you can feel towards your own parents?, the answer is obvious; yes. Why else did you think that God is so consistently imaged as a father? And not just in Christianity?

Michael OBrien

Merry Prankster wrote: »

This led me to wonder if there are people who believe the bible but have a problem with the character of God? Why does belief seem to automatically entail an unquestioning devotion to such a capricious, tyrannical figure?

People can believe something is real, but find it frightening. I have come across some that think along the lines that between a fate of eternal torture and sucking up to their god, the choice is clear. Basically they do it out of fear.
There are loads of viewpoints on this, so its not unusual at all for someone to dislike their god, but accept the situation that surrounds that god.
Most of the time you end up with a mental dissonance, a weak defence of some kind that allows the person to stay sane. Sometimes it means trying to convince yourself of the proposed merits of the god doing what it does, which can mean going ultra conservative and basically throwing in the towel for personal morality and just doing whatever you are told.
Others may go for theological arguments that address the problem of evil existing, and accept them at face value as a justification for it.
One example would be accepting that god cannot do otherwise because of the 'gift' of free will, thus it is all our fault for everything and that ends up with a lot of self hating going on. You can see that with many factions of christians, including catholics and calvinists.
After thousands of years, most religions have 'answers' for most issues, so a believer can find solace if they really want to, as long as they don't think to hard about it.
There is a lot of willing self deception going on, where the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, so they choose the deception over it.

John Lennox is an apologist that I find falls into this area, where death and a lack of justice in this world is so abhorant that he NEEDS a god to exist to live in any comfort, so he will go to any length to justify it.
William Lane Craig is similar, but seems to view the purposelessness of his existence with abject horror, and therefore self authenticates his faith over fact, which is why he repeatedly adds caveats when he debates that god is true even if his arguments fall to show that to be the case.
William justifies genocide in the OT as good, in order to live in a world where a god exists that gives him eternal purpose. He knows that genocide is bad, but he cannot accept his god is bad, so mental and moral gymnastics are involved to allow him to keep both at the same time (i.e. genocide is bad, unless god is behind it, then it is ultimately good).
Same goes on with Islam, where obvious cruelty is demonstrated in the quran but a muslim must find a way to live with it if he wants to avoid hell, which is worse. So the lesser of two evils.

Terrlock

Merry Prankster wrote: »

I started reading the bible yesterday for fun and right from the outset was struck not only by the ridiculousness of the stories but also the tyrannical nature of God.

Right there in Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve shows God to be cruel and vindictive. Adam and Eve are duped by the serpent into eating from a forbidden tree (why did God put it there in the first place?).

The penalty for Eve, and all women:

'I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'

The penalty for Adam:

'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.'

Also, they now both feel shame about their nakedness, and they will no longer have the chance to live forever. Quite a penalty for eating an apple - I though this guy was all about forgiveness.

This led me to wonder if there are people who believe the bible but have a problem with the character of God? Why does belief seem to automatically entail an unquestioning devotion to such a capricious, tyrannical figure?

I have a question, if Genesis is a true account of God and he has cursed women with painful birth is there any evidence of this?

I realize that it is a hard lesson to comprehend the why. However i'm curious to find out if it's actually true, Do animals feel as much pain during child birth has humans.

What mammal has the longest and most difficult Labour?

Just curious.

PopePalpatine

I'd imagine that since all living mammals would have a nervous system, then yes, they would feel at least something during childbirth.

Michael OBrien

Terrlock wrote: »

I have a question, if Genesis is a true account of God and he has cursed women with painful birth is there any evidence of this?

I realize that it is a hard lesson to comprehend the why. However i'm curious to find out if it's actually true, Do animals feel as much pain during child birth has humans.

What mammal has the longest and most difficult Labour?

Just curious.

While raised as the son of a farmer, I have seen animals give birth relatively easily and sometimes extremely difficult. But then most animals on a farm are subject to artificial selection and that can cause problems that might not occur normally.
Humans have a problem with child birth normally due to the female pelvis being too narrow, primarily due to our relatively recent evolution from walking on four legs to walking on two. Combined with the large heads of humans in general that is the source of the problem, not genesis. Before modern medicine and procedures like C-sections, child birth was extremely dangerous and life expectancy was more like 50 / 50 for the mother.
As far as the longest pregnancy - african elephants have a 22 month period.
Labour is a different matter due it it being random per person.

Terrlock

Michael OBrien wrote: »

While raised as the son of a farmer, I have seen animals give birth relatively easily and sometimes extremely difficult. But then most animals on a farm are subject to artificial selection and that can cause problems that might not occur normally.
Humans have a problem with child birth normally due to the female pelvis being too narrow, primarily due to our relatively recent evolution from walking on four legs to walking on two. Combined with the large heads of humans in general that is the source of the problem, not genesis. Before modern medicine and procedures like C-sections, child birth was extremely dangerous and life expectancy was more like 50 / 50 for the mother.
As far as the longest pregnancy - african elephants have a 22 month period.
Labour is a different matter due it it being random per person.

Sure does look like the elephant has it difficult.

Just reading up on the topic and it looks like elephant labor can last for 2 days.

However a lot of articles do indicate that human females have it more difficult then other mammals due to human babies having larger heads and the shape of the pelvis.

I wonder was that judgement in Genesis meant for Just man or all animals.

Terrlock

Anyways to answer your main question, I'm not a Roman Catholic, however I do believe the stories and I don't dislike God.

Hotblack Desiato

Terrlock wrote: »

I have a question, if Genesis is a true account

We know it's not. Nothing in it can or should be taken seriously.