September 10 and 18, 2011
(Revised October 1, 2011)
God appears reported to be accused of varied improprieties. The Bible appears to recommend referring to God questions about God, especially in light of apparent, generally accepted limitations of general human and personal knowledge and communication and the extent to which the Bible appears to suggest God’s existence extends beyond human understanding. That apparently Biblical recommendation, ultimately, is implemented here.
In addition, however, certain logic and reason regarding the suggested accusations against God appears sufficiently clear to allow its delineation. This apparent logic and reason is presented in the following essay.
Too Many Restrictions
God appears accused by some of having too many restrictive guidelines. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God, at creation, instead delivered an invitation to a world of opportunity (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:16), one responsibility (Genesis 2:15) and one restriction (Genesis 2:17).
The Bible further appears to suggest that God further clarified His standard in response to humanity’s increasing challenge to and violation of God’s minimal restrictions (various passages from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy).
Too Few Restrictions
God appears also accused by some of negligently and cruelly allowing adversity because He purportedly could and should have utilized His apparently Biblically-suggested omnipotence and omniscience to prevent Adam and Eve from making the wrong choice in the Garden.
However, the Bible appears to suggest that God established an environment with only one restriction, that God made that restriction clear and that God left the choice of whether or not to abide by that restriction to Adam and Eve. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve ultimately chose to accept a false depiction of God and, as a result, the corrupt leadership of the falsifier rather than the apparently falsely-maligned leadership of God. As a result, as the Bible appears to suggest, human perspective and discernment was damagingly altered, apparently resulting in less-wise decision-making that resulted in negative outcomes.
If God had prevented the possibility of undesirable human outcome by eliminating human capacity to choose non-compliance with God’s design, as God’s accusers appear to suggest He should have, the less-than-fully-informed might, and appear reported often to, accuse God of being too restrictive and of hiding from humanity something beneficial to humanity, perhaps, including the apparently oft-suggested ability of humanity to not need God, as the apparent Biblical “Adam, Eve and serpent” story appears to suggest that Adam and Eve were convinced to erroneously think. The section “Too Many Restrictions” above also attempts to address this perspective.
Responsibility for Adversity
God also appears to be accused of responsibility for human adversity. However, the Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that humanly-caused human adversity is the result of humanity’s decision to reject God’s leadership and to initiate processes with destructive social and other dynamics. I, humbly and respectfully, ultimately refer to God questions regarding the cause of natural adversity.
This apparent accusation against God appears to be that God’s arbitrary preference for Abel’s sacrifice provoked Cain to kill Abel.
Several passages including Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11, and 1st John 3 appear to refer to the story and appear to suggest that Cain was in the wrong. A quick search near the Cain and Abel story appears not to reveal specification of a lamb rather than vegetation. However, Genesis 4:6 appears to suggest that, when Cain became angry regarding the apparently rejected vegetation sacrifice and before Cain committed his later deed, God gently appealed to Cain regarding the correlation between acceptance and doing right. Although the basis of wrong appears not clearly specified to readers in the text, it appears reasonable to conclude that the basis might have been made clear.
If so, it appears that Cain might have altered the guideline, perhaps for reasons some might consider somewhat admirable. Based upon the rejection, Cain appears suggested to make an illogical choice: causing harm to Abel although Abel does not appear suggested to have harmed Cain. Cain might have distortedly attributed his rejection to Abel. This perhaps exemplifies the distorted perspective that the Bible appears to suggest resulted from the damaged relationship and connection to God apparently Biblically suggested to result from Adam and Eve’s rejection of God.
If God’s apparently suggested advise to Cain and the New Testament consensus regarding Cain is accepted as contextually suggesting Cain’s error, it appears reasonable to suggest that, if Cain is perceived to have been provoked, the perceiver’s solution would appear to suggest that impropriety not to be rejected. Implementation of this solution appears reasonably expected to result in the conditions which appear to give rise to the apparent accusation of some that God offers too few restrictions, as discussed above.
The Misdeeds of Fallible Human Followers
The Bible appears to include various accounts of human fallible judgment, even among the self-proclaimed followers of God. Some accusations appear to attribute to God the fallibility of those who claim to believe in God. In light of humanity’s apparently Biblically suggested choice to reject God’s leadership and the apparent resulting damage done to human discernment, such accounts of fallible judgment appear attributable to humanity’s choices rather than to God.
Punishment of Humanity
The Bible’s apparent description of God’s punishment of humanity for sufficiently egregious violation of God’s guidelines appears questioned. In light of the apparent Biblically suggested propriety and clarity of God’s guidelines and patience exhibited by God regarding such violations, the Bible’s apparently described punishment of humanity by God appears reasonably considered appropriate. The punishment humanity appears to inflict upon humanity appears reported to, at times, be quite severe and compounded by humanity’s fallible discernment of right, wrong, innocence and guilt.
God’s Assertion of Sovereignty
Accusations against God appear to include a suggestion that the Bible’s apparent description of God declaring His sovereignty and requiring humanity’s acknowledgement thereof appears to depict God as petty. However, the Bible appears to suggest that God’s sovereignty is the fundamental premise of reality. If that is the case, making that clear appears reasonable.
Certain accusations appear to suggest that God hasn't made his guidelines clear, as described above. God’s allowing Abraham’s lineage to exemplify human relationship with God might have been challenged by other nations or God might otherwise have recognized the propriety of making clear His sovereignty.
The Unsure Accusations
Other examples appear unclear. However, unspecified context might be important to understand them. The less positive alternative appears very inconsistent with God’s character as elsewhere and even juxtapositionally described.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that any reality that God provides and any outcome that results appears to be subjectable to retrospective accusation of fault toward God. To wit:
If God creates an excellent environment and establishes guidelines for human living, God might be accused of restricting human choice and potential.
If God removes human and/or environmental potential for violating those guidelines, God might be accused of being over-protective, of not sufficiently trusting humanity, of not allowing choice, of effectively forcing obedience, of unmeritously protecting humanity from nearly-guaranteed disobedience (Old Testament book of Job), and/or of doubting the “design strength” of God’s creation.
If God does not remove the potential for guideline violation and violation follows, God might be accused of negligently not protecting humanity from and/or preparing humanity for the potential for guideline violation, and/or of even maliciously plotting humanity’s harm. In addition, God might be accused of being overly punitive for banning humanity from the garden of Eden for its first violation on the basis that humanity appears to have had insufficient training and/or experience with violation-conducive circumstance.
If God does not remove the potential for violation and violation does not follow, God might be accused of, in fact, having removed the potential for violation. Humanity’s obedience might be attributed to a lack of potential for disobedience, rather than to humanity’s trust in and obedience toward God. The accusation might be levied at humanity that humanity would not have obeyed if potential for disobedience truly existed (Old Testament book of Job).
This tendency to find fault with God regardless of circumstance appears Biblically initially associated with Lucifer and the serpent. That tendency appears to support the apparently Biblically-suggested requirement of faith based upon existing evidence as a key ingredient of relationship and interaction with God.