Fashioning God in Gordon's image

B. A. Fletcher, Contributor

It is sometimes very ironic that many times the same thing we fight against or criticise, we become or do. Gordon Robinson in his article in The Sunday Gleaner 'Beliefs, Myths and Mind control' (October 3) though very bold knowing that many persons in Jamaica would oppose his views, ended up in my opinion committing the same act which he has claimed others have done - that is, to fashion God in his, Gordon Robinson's, own image.

In Robinson's treatise he theorised that the virgin birth was not accurately reported in the Bible but had some other means of happening. Persons have a problem with believing that, if there is a God, he can do things which we cannot. Therefore, he cannot cause a bush to burn and not be consumed; part the Red Sea, or turn water into wine. We have, therefore, limited God to our own abilities and perspectives.

Even among men there are feats that some men can do and so, why can't there be a God, if we do believe in one, who can do what we are unable to do.

Some people create their God in their own image so that they are not restricted in the way they want to live. If they acknowledge a supreme God that does not agree with how they want to live, it will pose a problem for their lives. Therefore, instead of them submitting to this supreme being who is wiser, more powerful and with great plans, they are the ones who control Him, and determine what He is like and what He is able to do.

God of Justice

Robinson seems to have a problem with a God who judges. We live in a world where we have laws that allow our societies to function harmoniously, while bearing in mind the rights of persons in general. In our various societies across the globe where these laws are not followed, there are consequences. Even in some of these nations that are considered more tolerant, it is interesting that they are now imprisoning persons for their views on homosexuality.

Right across the world, judgements are meted out through the judicial system to persons who do not follow the laws determined by man. The consequence, in some instances, is death or life imprisonment. People are many times judged guilty, even when they do not agree with the law that caused them to be sentenced. Even though they disagree with the law they have to bear the consequence of their actions.

People experience judgment through the human judicial system for wrongdoing against individuals and society according to human laws. The basis for these judgments, one assumes, is punishment for wrong doing as well as to prevent further ill actions against individuals and society.

If we have laws which should be obeyed by every single individual and there are judgements meted out when ignored, why then is it so hard to believe that there is a God /Creator who has laws which He expects us to follow and, therefore, disobedience to those laws have consequences?

In the societies in the world it is obvious that justice is partial. The rich have an advantage. For one, they can afford a better lawyer than the poor and, many times, it is the skill of the lawyer that determines the verdict. There are situations where persons got lesser sentences because they belong to a certain family or a particular group.

The judicial system is very fallible and many persons have suffered as a result of it. There have even been times where governments in various nations have carried out great atrocities to protect themselves and their image; resulting in many persons ending up without justice.

All that the God of the Bible is saying is that one day the correct judgement will be carried out with regard to every person. The man who paid off the judge and got away scot-free will one day receive the correct judgement. The person who killed someone and got away with it will one day get the right sentence for his actions, etc.

The Bible says that every man shall give an account for the things he or she has done in his/her own body and it also says that with God there will be no partiality.

I would not have known that Gordon Robinson believed the things he did, until he expressed them in his article in The Sunday Gleaner. The Bible is written for us to know how God thinks and what He plans to do. I have no problem with a God who shares His positions even though many will have difficulty agreeing with them. However, people seem to believe that God should not have His own views. If Gordon can have his views with which many disagree, how much more can God?

ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Gordon seemed to have had a problem with the Adam and Eve account in the Bible. One aspect had to do with talking animals. I am aware of two times in the Bible that an animal is reported to have communicated. The first was the serpent addressing Eve and the second was a donkey who spoke to Balaam. In the case of the latter, the Bible makes it clear that God made the donkey to speak.

Similarly, the devil, who is a fallen angel and a spirit, spoke to Eve through the serpent to accomplish his purposes and enable Eve to get another perspective on the matter. But since some people know everything, for them this could not possibly have happened.

However, the main issue of the Garden of Eden account with Eve, was not that a snake spoke, but rather to identify the root of man's dilemma. From the Bible's perspective, man has a problem and that is where it all started.

For me, it is clear that man has a problem. No matter which society and whatever the culture, man has a tendency to do evil even if they start out with good intentions. For example, several persons, though they are rich, still want to acquire more at the expense of others. Decent upstanding men in society are molesting boys and girls, some of whom are their own relatives. Men with good intentions try to build a utopian society and imprison or eradicate those they think are the perpetrators of the evil. But then, they themselves, become perpetrators of the same kinds of acts as their predecessors.

As a result of their lack of self-control in respect to their sexual desires, men and women cause families to be broken up and leave their children to grow up without their necessary input, critical to a child's development. We can fill this newspaper with the issue of man that the Bible calls sin.

We want better societies but we do surface dressing. Our solution to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS is to have more condoms dispensers without a serious challenge that encourages abstinence or faithfulness to one partner.

We want better-behaving children but we do not promote the things which encourage better family life.

We do not want men to be marginalised but more and more we are losing the definition of the term 'man'. I need help with the definition of a man and what roles he should play, or maybe there is no distinction.

We often seek to solve our societal problems by accepting the problems as being OK and then legitimising them.

I would not be surprised if one day paedophilia were legalised because of the increase in the number of persons practising these indecent acts without due course of justice. Does Gordon Robinson believe that man has an intrinsic problem? One would have to be blind not to see that there is.

UNFORTUNATE TONE

Much more could have been written, but enough said. In closing, I note that Robinson communicated with a rather unfortunate tone referring to "stupidity, cultist crap, etc" and criticising "fundamentalists' views". He then went on to establish his views as though they were based on facts. Not stopping there, he then went on to quote from a Bible which he half-believes. Then he uses it to voice his opinion on how the scriptures should be interpreted, in making his points in what we should believe. This is very ingenious, to say the least. And again, I say that he has made his own god, in his own image.

Feedback may be sent to bruceaf_100@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com