Reflections on why I rejected God

Posted by on May 26, 2017 in Atheism, christianity, Unitarian Universalism | 0 comments

Reflections on why I rejected God

Now that I’ve been thinking about religion, I’m brainstorming what I used to believe as a youth and why I rejected it. I’m starting with God, and what I was taught about this god. These characteristics were either explicitly stated or implied about what God of my upbringing was supposed to be.

– the personification of goodness and love
– could do anything
– created the world (In 6 days? Through theistic evolution? How this was supposed to fit into modern knowledge was not clear at all.)
– loves everyone (But the Bible says God hated Esau so that was confusing.)
– has no body (In contrast to what the Mormons believe.)
– listens to prayers (Yep, everyone around the world at the same time.)
– does things that affect the physical world
– can suspend the laws of nature at will
– created the laws of nature
– wants everyone to be ‘saved’ (But only the people who believe the right things will be?)
– wrote the Bible (Through humans, of course.)
– is a literally existing person
– has thoughts
– has feelings (anger, jealousy, affection, etc)
– has a mind
– is a person
– is male
– is unchanging (Though this is contradictory with having thoughts and emotions, which are constantly changing by their nature.)
– gets the credit for good things
– sometimes ‘lets’ bad things happen as part of an unknowable ‘plan’
– has a plan
– is very concerned with human affairs, especially sexuality
– demands blood sacrifice for ‘sins’
– could read your thoughts and was very concerned about whether or not you believed in him and in Jesus
– promised rewards after death for those who pleased him, and severe punishment for those who displeased him

The things that I was taught about God growing up confused me as to what expectations I should have. For instance, the preachers said that the Bible said that if any two people were together and prayed Jesus would grant them what they prayed. This seemed to work well for invocations, where there was a gathering and everyone prayed for a sense of God’s ‘presence.’ A sense of ‘presence’ only required that the people present believed it. Or if they prayed for success for the church parking lot repaving — while at the same time dedicated people worked very hard to make it happen. But if you asked for something more difficult, like actually bringing sight to a blind friend, not even the most fervent prayers of the elders at the church convention made the smallest difference. Weekly prayer gatherings for the kid with leukemia also made no difference, except that they expressed support and solidarity with the family. It could have made a lot of difference to me if it was actually presented that way. Maybe to the many of the adults there it was mostly just an expression of support for the family. If the church didn’t teach explicitly that God was *literally* a person who was all powerful and always present and loving and could actually intervene in these situations, I might actually believe that was the real intention.

But believing all that literally made no sense with what I was actually observing. None of it made sense, and when I questioned it I was either ignored, rebuked, or given answers that also made no sense to me. So I rejected it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *