Mark Stringer
First Unitarian Church of Des Moines
http://www.ucdsm.org

I’m sorry you had to be witness to a bunch of (probable) chaplain candidate lieutenants acting naive, ignorant and foolish (I’ve been there at one time), but I figure they were witness to you being an equally naive and unknowing UU candidate as well. They’re coming from one place, likely without much experience. It sounds like you were similar to them, only from the opposite direction.
From what you describe, you’re essentially caricaturing various evangelical positions, and using them as straw men to reflect on your personal theology. If UU positions are yours, that’s fine, but it would be nice if you could more accurately define evangelical positions (perhaps using the actual source materials) before using them as caricatures. I think we both know that the Bible paints a slightly different picture than standard evangelical belief teaches.
If you’re falling into the standard error/trap of declaring that belief in God’s omnipotence cedes free will, welcome to it. Progressive theology has been teaching this for almost 150 years…and was answered long before the position was even established. Last I checked, orthodox Christian teaching is that we have free will, since we are image bearers of the inifinite-personal Lord God, who Himself demonstrates true freedom. Our free will reflects our bearing His image in our creation. Sorry if you view that as an illusion, but I will defend happily your right to your religious opinion. It simply doesn’t describe the rest of us, that’s all.
If you hold to God having only one plan (as many evangelicals do), then you may have some salient points. Please recall, however, evangelicalism is not a theological monolith: there are many strains, most of which are different than historical Christianity. Does God have a plan for us? Likely, many plans, some of which are different than others. One size probably doesn’t fit all. But thanks for painting with one solitary color!
If God made the world “very good”, yet with uncontrolled (by us) chaos within it (as Genesis proclaims), then this accounts for “bad things” happening (our view). Orthodox Christian teaching includes God’s decretal will, among others. Does God ordain evil? No, but He sure uses it. Your (and my) confusion over these matters does not negate their reality, merely signifies our ignorance.
In short, much of this post doesn’t make sense, since your definition of God seems to shift throughout. At the end, you write:
“But God is not a being that is controlling or perceiving of all that has occurred… God simply is all that is occurring, in the moment. Each moment, as it unfolds across all of time and space is God developing.”
So I guess your position (and possibly the UU position as well?) is that God is not a personal being, an infinite-personal God who exists apart from the universe. God is more a force, an impersonal something out there, whom we endure. If this is accurate, then you’re correct: the consequences of the omnipotence and omniscience of an impersonal, unknowable, not-in-control and not-acting-in-reality at all “force” are truly tragic. I agree. This does not represent the infinite-personal God of the Bible, much less other monotheistic traditions. Now, if you’d actually accurately described the differences between the Christian God and yours, that would make for an interesting discussion. You didn’t, sadly. Thus, this became an interesting exercise in straw man attacks, ad hominem, and logical fallacies. But it was an useful read, David, amidst political craziness.
Thanks for a fun few minutes.

I. I’ve often said Christians would have an easier go of theology if they said god was just ‘mostly’ powerful rather than all powerful.

II. And of course, the below is the original, elegant, and unrefuted statement of the Problem of Evil:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing.
Then —Whence Cometh Evil?—
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
– Epicurus

III. “Why call him God” is really the question. Because even if god is mostly powerful rather than all powerful, the world is not what it could be. Many people make the world a better place, but in what way does “God” redeem himself? If he gets a pass for all the bad things in the world by virtue of being not powerful enough to stop it, what are his redeeming qualities?

IV. I think the Christian and more specifically the answer of Islam, which means submission, is to submit to the will of god. Bad things are bad, but it is a plan, so it can’t be that bad (or alternatively, it must be the best possible outcome). That’s a common theological response.

V. Sad news friend. Strong scientific evidence indicates that we in fact have no free will. Free will is an illusion arising from consciousness. True determinism, that we could predict the future given perfect understanding of current variables is muddled by quantum uncertainty (or ‘many worlds’ which posits that all things always happen), but those fluctuations still don’t afford us “free will” in a literal sense. We don’t have to worry that a cosmic being is out to get us or that we’re subject to some predefined plan, but in a very real sense, we are acting according to the laws of physics rather than a “free will” choice.

VI. I definitely agree with your justice comment. I often ask Christians about hell. They general say it exists. Then I ask if they think it is just. I really want to ask if they think that it’s ok to torture someone forever for not showing proper respect. Suffering and death on mass scales on Earth are nothing compared to the problem that finite failures never justify infinite punishment. No amount of Earthly misdeeds would warrant being tossed into hell. And failing to convert / show fealty doesn’t warrant any punishment at all to a God that isn’t terribly insecure.

I’ve certainly done a lot of thinking about hate speech in particular. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing with people who would claim it is just free speech and not actionable, and I usually disagree. Often hate speech is clearly done with the intent to incite violence or with the intent to intimidate or terrorize a group of people, and it is over the line for free speech. Just where that line between plain bigotry and this sort of hate speech is can be difficult to determine in some cases, and then in others it is crystal clear. When you light a match under a powder keg, you can’t plead that all you were doing was lighting a match, and that the explosion is all the fault of the powder.