According to a theologian, the term “God” is a virtual entity that every person can design based on their own preferences and needs. So a majority agreed on “God is love”.
Inhalt / Content
- 1 “God” could be anything
- 2 God defines himself by needs
- 3 Ruth is an example
- 4 Martin Luther also saw it “relatively”
- 5 Objection permitted, but…
- 6 Criticism only permitted within corridors
- 7 Ruth’s statement completely without context
- 8 Luther’s quote misused
- 9 The practiced unbelief
- 10 God – Spirit – Truth
- 11 God only relative? Then who is Jesus Christ?
“God” could be anything
You create a god of your choice and this can then be legitimately worshiped. A God according to his own ideas and needs. This is the summary of the supposed justification of the keyword “God is queer” by a so-called system theologian (Info) at “chrismon“, an online platform of the Protestant Church in Germany. In the “Religion for the Curious” section, the author aims to clarify what the term “God” is all about.
God defines himself by needs
Accordingly, the concept of “God” is realized individually for everyone depending on their needs and desires. The word “God” stands for what is important to people. This could be the search for security, love or sexual diversity.
The sentence proclaimed by Protestant pastor Quinton Ceasar at the 2023 Church Congress caused a stir: “Now is the time to say, God is queer.” (Info). The headwind did not stop. The author correctly states that there is nothing written about a “queer God” in the Bible. But the Bible was written by people who use “religious language”. God is not referred to as “queer”, but as “Lord” and that says more about the Bible authors than about God himself, according to the “theologian”.
In this sense, claiming that queer means homosexual or transgender is as nonsensical as saying that God is a heterosexual old man with a long beard.
Ruth is an example
The author refers to a Bible passage in the Old Testament, the Book of Ruth.
“Where you go, there I go too. And where you stay, there I stay too. Your people are my people and your God is my God!”
The focus here is on the last part, “your God is my God!” Here the word God does not stand for the highest being of a particular religion, but for “something absolutely significant,” according to the “theologian.” However, one cannot say why exactly, because only “whoever has the word in their mouth” knows that. Even whoever says this might not be able to translate it as anything other than “God.”
Martin Luther also saw it “relatively”
A quote from Martin Luther must also be used to support the author’s “theological theory”. “Whatever you set your heart on is your God.” In this case, the word “God” symbolizes exactly what is “very, very important” to those who use this word. A sentence that many people can agree on is “God is love”, as many people consider love to be very important, according to the “theologian”.
God and what is meant by that is not something that is universally and forever fixed. “What you set your heart on is your God,” Martin Luther once wrote. The word “God” symbolizes what is very, very important to those who use the word. What exactly that is cannot be said with the word alone. “God is love” – that is a sentence that many people can agree on because love is so important for many people.
Therefore, God is not the proper name of the highest being, but a word in religious language. It was the “main word of Christianity and other religions.” Those who long for security use the term “God is the Father in heaven”. It was a basic principle, and in this case the guiding protection sought, which also leaves freedom. Just like a good father.
Objection permitted, but…
The author also allows for contradictions to his theses “if he remains civilized.” In Protestantism it is already the case that a preacher has no authority over the faith of those listening. Everyone can see it differently. Nevertheless, one must remain cautious. Although the statement “God the Father in heaven” is objectively correct, it is a provisional statement in human religious language. This is just as more or less true as the statement “God is queer”.
Criticism only permitted within corridors
In fact, you can see it differently than this “theologian”. He can believe whatever he wants, but should then refrain from associating these theses with Christianity or the Gospel. The scraps of verse used as supposed evidence are quickly undermined when read in context. Apparently knowing this, the author refrained from citing the Bible passage containing Ruth’s statement.
The permitted objection is reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church’s attitude to freedom of religion or belief. It is permissible, but only within the defined framework of the “common good”. The author also admits that one can see things differently, but this should only be within the framework of the principle of his defined “relative God”.
Ruth’s statement completely without context
The interpretation of the verse part from the Book of Ruth is a “successful” example of how the inexperienced reader can be fooled with such erroneous theories. First of all, the complete verse, Ruth 1:16 (Kings James Version):
“And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:”
The fact that “God” is replaced by the Hebrew word “Elohim” (“אֱלֹהָי”), i.e. “God,” does not seem to interest the “systematic theologian” at all. Because if Ruth wanted to express a “rainbow-colored unicorn,” then she would have said “rainbow-colored unicorn.”
The reader of the Bible learns what kind of God Ruth’s statement is when he reads the sentence in context. Ruth was a Moabite and the people of Israel were forbidden from marrying women (and men) from a gentile nation. The Moabites were one of these pagan peoples. However, Ruth renounced her culture and her religion. She identified herself with the people of Israel and the (true) God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The God who led Israel out of Egypt with an outstretched arm and a strong hand. The same Elohim who created everything visible and invisible.
Luther’s quote misused
The question arose as to whether the “theologian” does not understand the context of Martin Luther’s statement, or whether he deliberately has to twist it like a pretzel in order to be able to support his adventurous theses. The sentence, “What you set your heart on is your God” in no way says that a legitimate God is defined by what you desire or love.
However, this sentence from Luther describes exactly what is called idolatry in other words. Be it the football club, some “superstar”, the money, or anything else that you set your heart on instead of God or Jesus Christ, then these things are each an idol. Acts 14:15:
“And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:“
The practiced unbelief
There is not the slightest trace of belief in the gospel to be seen in this “theologian.” The circles of “liberal theologians” are defined by such substitute philosophies, with an enormous distance from the Word of God. However, it would only be half as fatal if these apologists of pantheism identified themselves as such instead of continuing to refer to the Gospel and calling themselves representatives of Christianity. With the label “pantheism” or “pseudo-Christianity”, the “curious person” who takes a look at this section of the “evangelical” magazine would at least have an honest basis for their decision. But there even the truth is only relative.
God – Spirit – Truth
Who God actually is and what is sufficient for our understanding is described in John 4:24:
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.“
Now scholastics naturally have a problem with truth or reality. These are only relative sizes. They build their philosophies on the foundation of fiction and don’t even notice that their “spiritual excellence” exists in a vacuum. But the Bible also provides sufficient information about the definition of truth (Info).
God only relative? Then who is Jesus Christ?
The ideas of such a “God of his own needs” also raised the question of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. If God was a relative concept that only receives a temporary reality through individual wishes, then it follows that Jesus Christ would also only have to be a philosophical entity. However, it would be very difficult to reconcile this with John 14:6.
The motive is actually quickly explained. Such “theologians” talk about the gospel, but they don’t believe in it. It was simply her field of study of choice. Such “liberal theologians” could just as easily have studied a cookbook or embroidery pattern catalog for their own self-realization in order to develop their own chakra dynamics for human emotional patterns. Everyone has their own decision, but the term “Christianity” used here is a real misnomer. The fruits of the “Loyola Brotherhood” are now ripe.
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 2:1
Bible verses from King James Version