Consistency, thou art a gem.
Fundamental Theological Consistency
One of the virtues that humans hold dear is the twofold one of
consistency and coherence in thinking.
Should we not be CONSISTENT in our
theology? If God is good, is love,
shouldn't we have a theology that is consistent with that? Partially
because it lets the Bible override the message and demonstration of
Jesus, Christianity amalgamates its belief about God with a vision of
love on the one hand, where his "love and mercy endures for ever", and
then turns around and paints a picture of him turning loose upon us a
purely evil super-being, and ultimately doling out the most macabre,
most horrible punishment that we can imagine, an eternal burning in Hell punishment that
no reasonable man of good will, capable of mercy and compassion, would
inflict on ANYBODY. What kind of sick, twisted being would WANT to be aware
of others being burned alive and insist that it continues? This concept of
hell has the effect of inducing
fear, the opposite
of worship. How can this be valid?
If Jesus was the revelation of God, shouldn't we expect that he was
an adequate or perfect one? Where does Jesus mention that he gave only a
partial or inadequate picture or revealing of God? Look at John 17:25,26.
"O reasonable Father, the world understood
you not, but I understood you, and these knew that you sent me. I have
made known to them your character, and I will further make it known
that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I unified
Where does Jesus mention that we should fear God? Isn't he in unity
with the Father? What did he ever do or say that engendered fear in his
followers? Even after ministering to them for a few years during his
public life and when they didn't see who he really was, didn't listen,
many times didn't understand what he was talking about, didn't care
enough to even ask valid and pertinent questions, when they exasperated
him with their spiritual blindness, didn't he still take pains to
protect them during his arrest and trial process? Even when he knew that
one would betray him, one would deny knowing him, and that all would flee
in terror and abandon him! It should be abundantly clear that they loved
him and had no fear of him. Are we, the sons of God, made to live in
fear? This is not only odious but ridiculous and tragic on the face of it!
We would be shockingly remiss if we didn't understand that the Gospel
of John was written in Aramaic, then translated into Koine Greek, copied
and copied, and then translated into English with SOME loss of clarity
as the result. Even if Jesus in his statements gave no room for our
be involved, the Gospel writer perfectly remembered and
perfectly repeated his words, and the scribes perfectly made their
copies—none of these are a given—it should also be manifestly clear
that our volition and critical thinking needs to be involved in
developing a consistent theology or picture of God based upon the
witness writings that we have. One example we can look at is in John 9:1-3.
And passing by, he saw a man blind from
birth. His disciples asked him, "Teacher, who sinned, this man or his
parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Not that this man
sinned or his parents, instead that the result of God might be
demonstrated with him."
This is an example of where just a LITTLE volition or choice is
called for. We COULD hear Jesus implying that the man and his parents
were sinless, but because this is not consistent with many other
statements we should NOT! We COULD hear Jesus implying that God
deliberately caused him to be born blind, but we should NOT! This would
make the picture of God incongruous in the extreme, would make him out
to be quixotic and perverse in using us this way. Consistency demands
that we hear him merely shifting the issue away from the foolish
question to the present opportunity for God to be glorified in the
literal and symbolic miracle of healing this blind man.
consistency require that we abandon the mythological paradigm of God
based on ancient scripture, planet gods and Saturn worship, and build our theology upon what has been
revealed in public to eyewitnesses and affirmed with miracles, a
seamlessly good character, a life of appealing service, and the
stupendous events of a whole nation aware of a crucifixion, including a
RESURRECTION? Doesn't reason demand that we hold ANY writer's feet to
the fire as to this level of consistency, and throw out that which isn't?
the purpose of this site is to lay out the best, most consistent picture of
God that can be justified with intellectual responsibility.