THE LUST FOR GODS

THE LUST FOR GODS
Míceál Ledwith.

Something dreadful seems to have happened to God between the time of Abraham and the time of Moses. Putting precise dates on remote biblical happenings is notoriously precarious, but the difference in time cannot have been more than about five hundred years at most - which we have been copiously assured would be only as yesterday in the eyes of God.

The God of Abraham was undoubtedly a powerful God who dealt in a very forthright manner with those he considered to be corrupt, as witness the utter destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19. But he also had some of the most endearing traits of humanity. He was mild and approachable, and at times even showed himself in human form. But of course whether he was that way permanently or simply took on human form for particular projects, we have no way of knowing.

Whatever the explanation may be Abraham came upon him in a human form at the great tree of Mamre, and God accepted an invitation to visit his tent and have dinner with him.

That of course would be considered blasphemy by the later Priestly tradition which eventually contributed a major part of the Old Testament as we have it today. To make mattes even more difficult for the later Priestly tradition Abraham's God also gave a range of paternal and benevolent advice to the patriarchs and promised Abraham that he'd have a son at the age of 99 years. He gave suggestions on how to accomplish a safe journey and even offered advice on whom to marry.

A few hundred years later Moses was fleeing from a murder charge in Egypt. What kind of being did he meet in the Burning Bush at Horeb? A very different God indeed. Moses is warned to keep his distance and show reverence, and he is so terrified by this being that he is afraid to even look at him.

But the unsociable mood Moses met at Horeb was nothing in comparison to other matters connected with this being. God had already sent ten terrible plagues on the people of Egypt, most of whom were surely innocent of any wrongdoing against the Hebrews. The Nile was turned to blood and the land infested by locusts. Then the Lord sent the Angel of Death to kill all the first born sons of the Egyptians. Surely at least the children did not merit a sentence of death for nothing? Unfortunately these incidents have been used time and time again to ground the dangerous theology of election which has had such dire consequences in the history of all three of the major religions of the desert, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, who each in their own way have at the heart of their belief that they are uniquely and specially chosen. The consequences were never so dire as today. The powerful God of the Exodus from Egypt we still hear of frequently today from many a pulpit, but where has the approachable, mild and familiar God of Abraham gone? And more to the point how can these two utterly opposed set of characteristics be reconciled in the same individual? And if they can't be reconciled what does that tell us?

There are many places in the Old Testament where the love and compassion of God is stressed. But it's no secret that accounts of God's actions of a very different kind in parts of the Old Testament have for centuries caused serious difficulties of belief for many people, both within and outside of Judaism and Christianity. Karen Armstrong, for example, does not hesitate to describe the God,who, as a test of faith, asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, as 'a despotic and capricious sadist,' while two decades earlier even the scholarly and more restrained John L. McKensie described him " as ill favored and ill mannered as his followers."

When we contrast the way in which God is pictured in these two great formative biblical events, the call of Abraham and the Exodus from Egypt, the clash is too harsh to ever gloss over. So much is this the case that many individuals down the centuries have gone so far as to state openly that they could not be the same individual. Marcion in the third century of our era even denied that the God of the Old Testament was the Creator.

Yet this kind of individual right up to today has remained the official God for three major religions. Traditionally biblical scholars have been ready to concede that this God was a jealous God and have tried to put the best possible face on it, but when confronted with images such as God pictured as a man rising from a drunker stupor to kill his enemies (Psalm 78.65) or as the God behind the statement, also from the Book of Psalms, "The righteous will be glad when they are avenged/ When they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked," not to mention the horrific list of atrocities detailed the Book of Judges, Deuteronomy or Numbers. The defenders are on difficult ground indeed and realize trying to put a better face on this collection would border on the absurd.

Everything in nature and in the history of humanity serves a purpose or else it gradually fades away and is eliminated. Many claims have been made for religion, many of which are valid and many spurious. It's been maintained that religious belief gives hope, consolation, enlightenment, and inspiration and upholds the moral fiber of society. It gives the feeling of being loved and protected in a hostile world, and comforts us that all we are is not irretrievably lost at death.

But all of these very worthy states could be guaranteed by a very different set of presuppositions, then we have to ask what price has been paid so we can enjoy them? The acid test must be to ask do these foundational beliefs which we accept empower us or make us dependent? The fear which many people have of God and what judgment might await them after death must surely negate the majority of those positive effects which their beliefs are claimed to bestow. If people pay the price of disempowerment in order to feel they are taken care of, then it is a poisoned chalice indeed.

The tenacity with which so many hold on to these particular versions of religion despite all the contrary evidence shows that there is something far deeper to all of this that meets the eye. To have some superior being distinct from ourselves who will look after us seems to be a deeply ingrained need responding to an even deeper sense of powerlessness and insecurity. This is so deep a trait in human history that it can be best described as a lust for gods.

To the perceptive this gives us a remarkable insight into our origins, and explains a lot of the burdens under which we labor in our efforts to evolve spiritually and why we often find it so appallingly difficult. When we look at the radical contrast between the God of Abraham and the God of Moses we are opening a very large window indeed into understanding where we came from and what we need to do to advance now in power. I will continue to investigate these questions in the articles that follow in the next few months.

Back to Articles List