Red Fish, Blue Fish

Is your God a red God or a blue God? It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Budhist, Atheist, Jewish, Agnostic, Muslim, Pagan, or something else altogether. Just review the two lists below and tell me which God you're more drawn to.

Believers in a red God view the almighty as:

• patriarchal
• domineering
• powerful
• judgmental
• demanding
• vengeful
• dictator of specific rules and expectations

Believers in a blue God view the almighty as:

• nurturing
• loving
• accepting
• all-inclusive
• understanding
• embracing of diversity

I recently listened to a recorded talk by the controversial Joseph Sprague, a retired Methodist Bishop who said, "I will no longer give service to that red God."

Certainly God is larger and more complex than either of these two lists reveal, but the breakdown is intriguing to me as someone who has always believed in the liberal, blue God and still gets antsy and uncomfortable around any belief system that primarily embraces the red God gospel.

So why is that red God so popular today? Why has America embraced those red God ideas so full-heartedly? What is it about that strict, stern ruler that attracts so many people?

Comments

[jen]

He did make the universe, so I assume He is The Most Powerful. He does demand our love since He did create us, so I assume He is demanding. Someday we may show up at His front door craving admittance and He will decide who enters, so I think that's judgmental. He did create the Law of the Land -- the Ten Commandments, so I call that dictatorship.
Obviously He loves us. Who wouldn't love their children? You want to nurture your children and accept them for who they are, but ultimately you are the parent and your word is law.
I can see where people follow the red viewpoint. Red comes first, then blue follows. If you don't follow the rules then you don't get the reward. The reward being love.
Like a mother with a child in prison. She loves it, wants it to be part of the family, but the child strays his own way. Thus the consequences. The mother is sad, but the Law must be followed.

[erin]

The people I know who fit into that "Red" category, seem to think they need that strictness. They need to be told, otherwise they feel they would not be able to make decisions on their own. My brother in law and I had a very heated discussion once, and he couldn't understand how I knew right from wrong without a bible. He MUST have his, or he feels he would know nothing.

[Sarah]

I agree with Erin. I think that people who worship a red god have a need for the very specific rules. It can give them direction if they can't focus themselves.

[Beau]

Blue, very very blue.

Susan and I go to a Lutheran church and that is often to red for my comfort.

I think the bible needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Did you ever play the game as a child where you whisper a sentence to the person next to you and that person repeats it to the person next to them until it goes all the way around the room? It was always fun to see how much the sentence changed by the time it gets to the end. Most stories in the bible were passed verbally then once they were written down they were copied and translated many times. Also I have a hard time believing that no one involved in writing or translating any of the stories in the bible did not tweak the story to meet their beliefs or agendas. I believe the general idea is intact but I refuse to believe that every word was translating properly.

How could anyone believe that a newborn baby that dies before getting baptized goes to hell? Any god who makes that rule is not getting my worship or love.

Sorry for getting a little of the subject there.

[karen]

Jen- I think you're onto something.

I go to the Anchoress every day for a Catholic pep talk (she's very Conservative, so you may not like). She posted on Love and Law and used an analogy sent to her by a friend: John and Peter went to the tomb to see if Christ was, in fact, not there. John ran on ahead, but as they neared, he waited for Peter and let him go first. John represents Love and Peter- the Law. Law and Love go hand in hand- but, if we seek the Love of the Lord- we gladly embrace the Law.

[jen]

I don't think He is a sentimental as Blue People would like to think. There is scientific proof of a Great Flood. If you believe God caused that flood then how could you deny the Red God? Flooding the Earth is pretty drastic for a Blue god. He must have been really mad that day. I wouldn't want to push his buttons. If you read Revelations that doesn't paint a pretty picture either (whether it's 100% right, who knows). The fact that Hell on Earth was even included in the Bible says something.

I think the 10 Commandments are fairly common sense for anyone no matter how smart or unsmart to figure out.

[Alison]

I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn that I agree with Beau here.

Just because there's proof that a great flood occurred does not mean the Genesis account of why that flood occured is accurate. The Genesis account, in my opinion, is the mythical explanation given by the people of that time period, told and re-told, embelished and re-embelished to reflect certain spiritual truths they believed at that time. Like most of Genesis, it's a beautiful story that should be read in its historical and rhetorical context - not taken literally.

[jen]

The Great Flood is just one example, and it is so detailed that it is hard not to believe. I think these stories were embellished with details so people wouldn't think they were just fables handed down to pass the time. Did God cause the flood? Who knows? Who was Noah anyway? Was he a reliable source? Yes, there are parables that shouldn't be taken literally. There's some entertainment in the Bible so we don't get bogged down by all the rules, history, facts, begats, and crazy old language. People did know how to write on their scrolls and cherished their words like gold. Let's tell Peter, Paul, Mark, John, etc. (if they even existed) that all their words are not to be taken literally when they spent their lives creating those words. What about the Red Words? People seem to take Shakespeare more literally than the Bible.
I'd say about 90% of the world's religions have strict guidelines.
Look at the Muslims, Hindus, Amish(religion?), Baptist, Catholics. They definitely take their religion extremely seriously, not with a grain of salt. Whatever book these religions favor are held in the highest regards by their followers. Is their book or religion better? Who knows, but I never understand churches that barely even read out of their Chosen Book.
It's easier to believe things that are beyond our comprehension when they are sugercoated and turned to favor our own ideas and opinions. Especially in this day and age when there are so many fun, easy alternative things to think about. Which brings me back to my new mantra: simplify, simplify, simplify.
Too many questions where no true answer exists are pointless.

[Alison]

Questioning its authenticity does not mean that I question the sacredness and importance of the Bible as a religious document. I don't. I just read it differently than the literalists and fundamentalists. And there are fundamentalists and progressives filling the spectrum of every religion. These two sides will always read their Great Books differently.

In Christianity, many people have and continue to question the red-quoted words you mention. In recent years, these ideas have been represented in the historical-Jesus movement and the Jesus Seminar (do a google search to learn more). Historically, it was the gnostics and mystics, among others, who looked at those red words differently than the fundamentalists. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that the idea of reading the Bible literally really is a modern phenomenon.

By some accounts, only 10 percent of those red quotes are considered truly authentic, with the remaining 90 percent re-written, re-told or completely fabricated. What it comes down to, for me, is deciding in your heart which messages are the most important and which messages may have been added for political, historical or personal reasons.

In my heart of hearts, it's the blue messages that ring true, and it's the blue messages that come through as the most sincere and the most important throughout the Bible - especially in the New Testament's red quotes.

[Beau]

And speaking of Noah. There is a set amount of water on this planet. Some in the oceans lakes and streams, some in ice caps some in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure there is not enough to cover the entire surface of the planet. Also it would take some serious miracling to get 2 of each animal on a boat and have enough food, enough room and enough cages to keep them from eating each other. Nor do I think eight people would be enough people to care for these animals. Also if every animal on this plant came from just two parents and all people came from eight parents (who were all related I believe) there would be some serious inbreeding problems. I find it amusing how religions always make up excuses to explain away science when it conflicts with the bible (arc, evolution, age of man etc.) but they jump at the chance to use science to say there was a big flood once or to carbon date the Shroud of Turin.

[jen]

There weren't nearly as many animals bc. as there as today. I'm pretty such if the north and south poles melted, we would be needing snorkles.

They made up some tall tales in those Bible times. The whole Noah story is a miracle in itself. Miracles don't happen the same as in biblical times. I think the only miracles we are privileged to see are birth and death. God quit trying to prove himself to us, knowing that seeing is believing for humans.

How can anyone possibly know which percentage Red Quotes are real or fabricated?

It seems as though non-fiction books, by some modern authors, are easier to believe than something thousands of years old (still intact, with consistent versions around today).

How many people actually read the Bible front to back? People actually reading the Bible-- literally is a modern phenomenon. Yet they have so many answers . . .

[Alison]

The historians I refer to are Biblical Scholars. Their studies are controversial and have been disputed to be sure, but they're not just your average joes making willy-nilly guestimates about the accuracy of New Testament quotes.

They've not only read the Bible but they've studied that time period and analyzed the Apocrypha and other noncanonical texts of the messianic time period. They understand the differences between what Jesus might have said and what his followers hundreds of years later might have said in a rhetorical effort to sway specific groups of people to interpret His teachings in a specific light.

All of the progressive Christian authors I've read are ministers and priests and others who take their Bible very seriously. Yes, their books are easier to read than the Bible, but I read my Bible too - on my own and in conjunction with these other readings.

I don't think I have all the answers. Far from it. In fact, that's my PRIMARY criticism of fundamentalists. THEY think they have all the answers and they think they know what the Bible is supposed to mean word for word chapter for chapter. They have it all figured out and point their fingers at people who disagree with their interpretations and call them sinners because they live their lives differently. Their attitudes are patriarchal, judgemental, and many of those other red traits ... which is why I have a hard time embracing a red God.

[Sarah]

Adam and Eve cause me to worry about inbreeding.

Noah kids would have just been distant relatives inbreeding again.

Shouldn't creationists also be okay with siblings marrying if the choose to do so?

[jen]

Thinking about God's bossiness got me thinking about all the other bosses in our life that we listen to. Our bosses, parents, siblings, husbands, friends, goverment, dog, etc. We boss children around and give them endless rules to follow because we are concerned about their wellfare and want what's best for them. We love them so much they might get a spankin' for running in the street. Kids -- don't play w/matches, eat your veggies, be nice to your brother. Yet we rebel against a God with rules.

Someday, if in Heaven we saw Noah & Moses walking around and all the answers we ever wanted to know smack us in the head, I think I'd say 'O, Lord, I'm so sorry I didn't your words and accept them as true' and He'll say "Shh! No worries my child. It was all just a myth. I'm surprised people still paid money for that BS.'
In 2000 years people may think we were just a myth and like John Popper says -- it won't mean a thing in a hundred years.

[Shannon Lewis]

I think if you read what's been said of God over the past 2000+ years, the perception of God's nature today is Bluer than it has ever been in history...wouldn't you?