Haberman's chapter on the Bible gave me a new perspective on God, not in the sense that I'm now a believer, but a new perspective on what God could truly be. In class, we touched on the topic of taking the Bible literally or metaphorically. On pages 112-113, Haberman raises the same type of qualm in regard to interpreting God. He asks where we should "draw the line between symbolic or metaphorical talk of God and realistic, literal talk of Him" (112). He describes that God is neither a material body nor a mere abstraction. His ideas and musings lead me to think that God could be in himslef somewhat of a spiritual realm. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, almost like the soul or spirit of the earth and everything on it. He belongs to no one, and to everyone, and he is capable of intentions, actions, and feelings. Interpreting "God" as a presence rather than a being seems much more digestable to me. Trying to envision one being who created all we know on this earth and beyond just seems to raise more questions than it answers.
Q.) How do you think God should be viewed? Should there even be one universal interpretation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment