To be worthy of the name “god,” a being would need to live by its own moral principles more faithfully than its followers do. A deity that operates by a “do as I say, not as I do” standard is not divine. It is manipulative, and unworthy of devotion.
If a god instructs its followers to “forgive seventy times seven,” then forgiveness must define that god even more fully. A being that preaches forgiveness while simultaneously preparing eternal punishment for doubt or failure falls short of its own teaching. Forgiveness and eternal torment cannot coexist. Where true forgiveness is present, punishment has no place.
The same contradiction appears in commands against violence. A god that decrees “do not kill” cannot then justify killing without placing itself below the moral standard it imposes on others. When plagues, floods, or divine punishments are said to harm innocents—babies and children included—the claim of moral authority collapses. A being that requires the brutal execution of its own child as a blood sacrifice should not be elevated as holy, but examined with moral seriousness.
If a god claims to love and protect its faithful, that love should exceed anything found in human relationships. Yet stories that depict such a god wagering with Satan, allowing suffering to test loyalty, reveal something closer to cruelty than compassion. A being that refuses to follow the rules it demands of others is not beyond judgment. History has been clear on this point: rulers who made laws only to exempt themselves from them were rightly condemned.
It is worth questioning stories of gods who demand obedience while violating their own moral codes. It is worth being cautious of institutions built around such portrayals. And it is worth reading so-called “holy” texts with discernment rather than submission.
You do not need to abandon your moral sense to honor something called divine. If anything, that moral sense may be the very standard by which all claims of divinity should be measured.
