I loved listening to the interview and thought both women were brilliant and witty. I'm a big fan of "On Being", and that's without reservation. But there was a fly in the ointment. God is either 'knowable' or god is not knowable. And I'm fine either way; but it's one way or the other. It's no good to theorize that god is unknowable, and then later in the interview, conjure a caring god who manages to "show up" only after the atrocities are perpetrated, proposing that what god's really doing - behind the scenes where it doesn't seem to be doing humanity any real good - is 'taking up our burden'. Hogwash. God seemed plenty content to let Jesus get whipped and tortured and crucified. And yet Nadia Bolz-Weber would describe Jesus's death on the cross as god's "shining moment"? How so? At what point did god put a stop to it, or switch places? "Helping humanity bear its burdens" seems a nasty euphemism for god's abandonment of the innocent. Just once I'd like to see god take care of the innocent when it would do them some good; like say, before the school-children are tortured and gassed and have acid thrown in their eyes so that they're blinded for life. Maybe the ancient writers who depicted god as a "cigar chomping" psychopathic sadist weren't entirely wrong. They too thought they knew god. And where's god's Bishop anyway?
More information about text formats