Are Humans God ?

[osgart]

The word God means power and authority over lives, and existence itself. Humans will never be more than a fleeting, fading power that is here today, gone tomorrow. Truth is the only thing with authority, and by truth I mean in accordance with virtues. Humans can be noble, but they are often far from that. Power is nothing to envy. Power to destroy, control or let live does not make one a God. The only power worthy of power is that which is of the virtues.

To be king of a fading universe only for the span of a lifetime is meaningless, and empty. I'm not so sure that God is a worthwhile thing to be anyway.

This existence is not truly life. Life is where love is made through virtues. This existence without love is not at all significant. Love is the only power that gives existence life.

Godhood is an empty pursuit fraught with vanity and arrogance. No one really cares about vanity and arrogance. No one ever will, especially the vain and arrogant.

 

[ppp]

If you're saying that calling whatever God does truthful and just is an irrational, arbitrary standard for what is good, then I'm curious. What do you think is a rational definition of the words "truthful and just"?

I am saying that calling whatever God does "truthful and just" is not standard.. It is a retrofit. It is an excuse. It is a special plea.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I think that the god of the Bible is worse than any human I have ever met.

The biblical God has been portrayed as a heavenly father, but speaking as a former Christian, I think of him as far worse than an abusive parent. In my opinion, he is the perfect example of a narcissistic and abusive father who only expresses love for his children whenever they do or say precisely what he wants them to do or say. And his children think that if they don't make him angry, he won't hurt them, but they are unsure because he has a violent temper and is known to lash out when he is angry. So if they disobey him and upset him, then there will be punishment and hell for them to pay. It isn't a healthy relationship founded on unconditional love, trust, and respect, but rather on constant fear and mistrust. It's an abusive and toxic relationship that must be confronted, and those trapped within must be rescued from it. I freed myself, and I've assisted others to free themselves from their belief in God as well.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

I am saying that calling whatever God does "truthful and just" is not standard.. It is a retrofit. It is an excuse. It is a special plea.

I believe that God is the only fully consistent being in all of existence, and therefore his consistent actions and his consistent commands for mankind are not only a standard but the standard. I don't think that you can have any kind of standard or truth without God any more than you can have life on earth without the sun. If I could be shown solid evidence for a different foundational, fully consistent standard, or solid evidence that invalidates God as the standard, I'd be happy to reconsider the status of God's perfection as a "special plea".

 

[ppp]

I believe that God is the only fully consistent being in all of existence, and therefore his consistent actions and his consistent commands for mankind are not only a standard but the standard.

I have no reason to doubt that you believe that. I also have no reason to think that you are rationally justified in thinking so.

I don't think that you can have any kind of standard or truth without God any more than you can have life on earth without the sun.

[Same response as above].

If I could be shown solid evidence for a different foundational, fully consistent standard, or solid evidence that invalidates God as the standard, I'd be happy to reconsider the status of God's perfection as a "special plea".

You haven't demonstrated that there is an extant god, or that you have arrived at the conclusion that your god is a standard through any reliable methodology that is open to testing and examination. In essence, you have said nothing more than, This is what I believe. Prove me wrong. That is not a meaty basis for a discussion.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

You haven't demonstrated that there is an extant god, or that you have arrived at the conclusion that your god is a standard through any reliable methodology that is open to testing and examination. In essence, you have said nothing more than, This is what I believe. Prove me wrong. That is not a meaty basis for a discussion.

I suppose that's fair enough. If you'd like to have amore in depth discussion about some more specific, meatier points of my beliefs, I'd be
happy to oblige. But first, I think it would be helpful to define some terms. First of all, would you agree that there has to be an objective standard for truth that is separate from individual human beings? In other words, is something always true wether someone believes it or not? Or do you think that individuals can determine what's true for themselves? I simply ask because there's no point in me defending a particular universal standard for truth if you reject that there is a need for a universal standard.

 

[ppp]

I suppose that's fair enough. If you'd like to have amore in depth discussion about some more specific, meatier points of my beliefs, I'd be
happy to oblige. But first, I think it would be helpful to define some terms. First of all, would you agree that there has to be an objective standard for truth that is separate from individual human beings? In other words, is something always true wether someone believes it or not? Or do you think that individuals can determine what's true for themselves?

I treat the word 'true' as that which comports with reality. 'X exists' is true if X manifests in reality. 'X exists' is true or false independent of the perception of individuals.

That is independent as to whether a person is justified in accepting that X exists.

With my moderate understanding of how chemistry and physics work I would be very surprised if there were no extra-terrestrial life. But I do not accept the proposition that non-terrestrial life exists because there is insufficient evidence to make that determination. I hold that the hypothesis extra-terrestrial life exists is not true. I will hold that position until there is determining evidence that the hypothesis is true, or false

I simply ask because there's no point in me defending a particular universal standard for truth if you reject that there is a need for a universal standard

I am unsure what you mean by standard in this case. A standard does not make reality. A standard measures reality. My yard stick and meter stick are both the products of objective standards. The reason I choose one or the other may (or may not) be arbitrary, but they are still objective standards of measure.

 

[Nimos]

If so then why and if not then why ? I personally think that humans are becoming more powerful than God Therefore making us God Like.

I would probably agree, that humans are working towards it. I wouldn't call us gods in that sense, because our "godlike" abilities are purely based on our brains and demonstrated through our technological abilities.

But I do think at some point far into the future when we master death our technology will be so advanced that the things we can do will appear godlike.

 

[1213]

You simply call whatever you think your god does "truthful and just" by a kneejerk theological default.

I don't think that is true. Why do you think so?

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

I treat the word 'true' as that which comports with reality. 'X exists' is true if X manifests in reality. 'X exists' is true or false independent of the perception of individuals.

That is independent as to whether a person is justified in accepting that X exists.

With my moderate understanding of how chemistry and physics work I would be very surprised if there were no extra-terrestrial life. But I do not accept the proposition that non-terrestrial life exists because there is insufficient evidence to make that determination. I hold that the hypothesis extra-terrestrial life exists is not true. I will hold that position until there is determining evidence that the hypothesis is true, or false


I am unsure what you mean by standard in this case. A standard does not make reality. A standard measures reality. My yard stick and meter stick are both the products of objective standards. The reason I choose one or the other may (or may not) be arbitrary, but they are still objective standards of measure.

I absolutely agree with what you're saying. Truth should be defined as what comports with reality, and the standard of truth should be a measuring stick for the reality that already exists, not a way of shaping what reality is. I made a point of asking because I've talked to plenty of people who simply brush off everything I say (whether it be a religious idea or scientific fact) with "Well, that's great for you, but that's not what I believe." They essentially define truth (especially religious truth) as a useful set of beliefs for an individual. They treat truths that I believe to be objective (the sky is blue, insulin lowers your blood sugar, God is real) as subjective (blue is the best color, ice-cream is delicious, cats are adorable). I think there is a very real place for humans to disagree and argue about what the objective truth is, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the points that is being argued (or perhaps a different point of view that hasn't entered the conversation) is objectively correct, and the rest are objectively wrong. You can argue that 2+2=22 all the live long day, but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4. Anyway, I hate that this is something I have to clarify, but in the past I've wasted entire conversations because I failed to define what truth is at the outset.

So, getting to the point of the conversation, I believe that God (and specifically the God of the Bible) is the only possible standard for right and wrong because he is the only standard I have found that fits with what I see in reality. I believe that there are things that are universally right and universally wrong. For example, I believe that things like murder, torture, and rape are universally wrong no matter what time, place, or cultural context you are in. I know of few people who would disagree with me on that basic principle, wether in this day and age or any other.

Since only thinking beings have any concept of moral truth, I think this universal definition of right and wrong must have come from a thinking source. I don't think this idea of right and wrong can possibly be innate to human beings (the only earthly thinking creature of which we are aware). After all, even though this idea of basic morality is seen throughout the majority of human history, plenty of people groups (take the Nazis' and their slaughter of the Jews for example) have abandoned this standard at one level or another. So the idea that "murder is wrong" is simply ingrained in our DNA as a survival mechanism doesn't really compute.

So I think that this idea of morality and truth must have come from some other thinking, feeling, moral source outside of fallen humanity and was passed down to us. More specifically, I believe that the God of the Bible passed this idea of morality and truth down to us, and that he did so most clearly through his word in scripture. The moral rules laid out in scripture (although many arguments have been made against them) are the most consistent and defensible set of principles of which I am aware. In my experience, they lead to more flourishing than any other moral or philosophical system. So from my perspective, while you don't have to believe in God to be moral, you do have to believe in God to justify that morality. So when I say that what God does is truthful and just, I say that because God seems to me to be the only possible way to define what truthful and just even means. Every other measure of truth that I've examined has proved itself to be completely circular. So, because it is obnoxiously impractical to measure the straightforward truths of reality with a circle, I have tossed them aside. Anyway, that's a gross oversimplification, but hopefully that gives you at least a little more depth on my original claim that God is the standard. He is the standard because the Biblical law holds up in reality, and every other proposed set of rules folds.

 

[ppp]

I absolutely agree with what you're saying. Truth should be defined as what comports with reality, and the standard of truth should be a measuring stick for the reality that already exists, not a way of shaping what reality is. I made a point of asking because I've talked to plenty of people who simply brush off everything I say (whether it be a religious idea or scientific fact) with "Well, that's great for you, but that's not what I believe." They essentially define truth (especially religious truth) as a useful set of beliefs for an individual. They treat truths that I believe to be objective (the sky is blue, insulin lowers your blood sugar, God is real) as subjective (blue is the best color, ice-cream is delicious, cats are adorable). I think there is a very real place for humans to disagree and argue about what the objective truth is, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the points that is being argued (or perhaps a different point of view that hasn't entered the conversation) is objectively correct, and the rest are objectively wrong. You can argue that 2+2=22 all the live long day, but that doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4. Anyway, I hate that this is something I have to clarify, but in the past I've wasted entire conversations because I failed to define what truth is at the outset.

So, getting to the point of the conversation, I believe that God (and specifically the God of the Bible) is the only possible standard for right and wrong because he is the only standard I have found that fits with what I see in reality. I believe that there are things that are universally right and universally wrong. For example, I believe that things like murder, torture, and rape are universally wrong no matter what time, place, or cultural context you are in. I know of few people who would disagree with me on that basic principle, wether in this day and age or any other.

I do not see any evidence in the Bible that God is opposed to murder, torture, or rape on any sort of universal basis independent of time, place, culture and context. In fact, I see the exact opposite in that text. Repeatedly.

I am not ignoring the rest of your text, but I am rejecting the foundation you are setting down to move forward.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

I do not see any evidence in the Bible that God is opposed to murder, torture, or rape on any sort of universal basis independent of time, place, culture and context. In fact, I see the exact opposite in that text. Repeatedly.

I am not ignoring the rest of your text, but I am rejecting the foundation you are setting down to move forward.

That's fair enough, I appreciate you being straightforward. May I ask for a specific example or two where you "see the opposite" so I can get a better idea of what exactly your objection is?

 

[ppp]

That's fair enough, I appreciate you being straightforward. May I ask for a specific example or two where you "see the opposite" so I can get a better idea of what exactly your objection is?

Sure. I will annotate the non obvious ones.

Torture

1. Eve is tortured as punishment for her actions. According to the Bible, roughly 50 billion women have subsequently punished for the actions of someone else..
2. Egyptian parents are tortured with the deaths of the children in order to instill abject submission in their Pharaoh
3. Humans ripped apart by bears as punishment.
4. Beating slaves to the brink of death.

Rape

1. Taking women as spoils of war and taking them in to sexual and chattel slavery. Deut 21:10-14.
2. Rapist pays father for daughter after raping her. Deut 22:28-29
3. Wives must submit to their husbands in everything (as though they were gods). 1 Cor 14:34-36; Eph 5:22-24, et al.
4. God did not gain Mary's informed, enthusiastic consent.

Murder

1. Flood
2. Lot's Family
3. Amalikites, Midianites, etc
4. The tortures mentioned above ending in death.

 

[ReformedGuitarist]

Sure. I will annotate the non obvious ones.

Torture

1. Eve is tortured as punishment for her actions. According to the Bible, roughly 50 billion women have subsequently punished for the actions of someone else..
2. Egyptian parents are tortured with the deaths of the children in order to instill abject submission in their Pharaoh
3. Humans ripped apart by bears as punishment.
4. Beating slaves to the brink of death.

Rape

1. Taking women as spoils of war and taking them in to sexual and chattel slavery. Deut 21:10-14.
2. Rapist pays father for daughter after raping her. Deut 22:28-29
3. Wives must submit to their husbands in everything (as though they were gods). 1 Cor 14:34-36; Eph 5:22-24, et al.
4. God did not gain Mary's informed, enthusiastic consent.

Murder

1. Flood
2. Lot's Family
3. Amalikites, Midianites, etc
4. The tortures mentioned above ending in death.

First of all, thank you for choosing an interesting set of examples. Second of all, I would like to make a distinction between evil actions (such as murder) and judicial punishment. I believe that God is as he describes himself to be in Exodus 34, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

Even when it comes to human justice, there is a massive difference between murdering someone in cold blood and serving someone the death penalty for evil actions they know someone has committed. Many of the examples that you mentioned are examples of judicial punishment, God serving justice to those who committed evil against God and others. For example, according to Genesis 6:5-7 the flood was a judgement against mankind because they were filled with evil, and God took no joy in carrying this punishment out. He has visited similar punishments (as you mentioned) against other groups of people throughout history. Even in human justice, we often punish entire groups of people for the actions and orders of their leaders (take Hitler's Germany). God does the same thing. Eve, as the first and most important representative of womankind had the punishment for her actions visited upon those she represented. When Pharaoh (through the people of Egypt) mistreated God's people and then repeatedly refused God's command to let them go, God visited Pharaoh's punishment against those under his rule. Part of being a leader is knowing that those you lead can (and will) suffer for your mistakes.

Other things that you referenced are laws that God put in place for his people. These laws were put in place by God as the best practically applicable solutions for terrible problems. Admittedly, the practice of paying a bride price and marrying someone who you raped is a far from ideal situation, but (at least at the time) it was the best way to discourage such actions and comply with God's command for monogamy. I think your example of slave beating (which I assume refers to Exodus 21) falls into a similar category. These laws are meant to be practically applicable in order to prevent as much harm as possible. Also the laws in Exodus 21 in particular are also primarily financial and not moral in nature. They detail the financial and judicial consequences of the treatment of everything from slaves to pregnant women to oxen, they never encourage the beating of slaves.

The example of Deuteronomy 21 falls short for me, as it talks about taking women as wives not as slaves. This means that these women would (at least by law) have to be treated in accordance with Biblical teachings on marriage, and even if no longer wanted, could not ever be treated as slaves (Deuteronomy 21:14). As far as your attack on Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 14, yes, wives are meant to submit to their husbands. However, I see no intrinsic problem in this because men are also commanded in scripture to treat their wives well (Exodus 5:25-33) and are promised punishments if they do not follow this commandment (1 Peter 3:7). In fact, in extreme cases (such as a man who abuses his wife) I believe that the man's failure to keep up his side of the bargain can negate the woman's need to stick with her side (allowing for things like divorce).

Sorry if that was a bit long winded, and I know I didn't respond to every one of your points, but that's how I would answer what I understand to be your overall accusation. Also, I'm curious about something. If you reject that the God of the Bible is who decides what is right and wrong, why would you say that things like murder, torture, and rape are ultimately wrong?

 

[blü 2]

If so then why and if not then why ? I personally think that humans are becoming more powerful than God Therefore making us God Like.

Gods are a human invention. I suspect they arose to account for things otherwise inexplicable to the observers, such as lightning, thunder, shooting stars, eclipses, famine, plague, good and bad luck, dreams, including dreams about people who've died.

And in this way to form part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, folk history, stories of heroes &c, particular skills and so on. That which consolidates tribal identity seems to improve the odds for the survival of your own genetic material into future generations, even if you yourself die fighting for the tribe.

That would help account for why we've never found a culture that lacked supernatural beliefs of some or other kind.

So humans aren't gods. They're imagined so as to fill the gaps in what we can't explain. And as a possible source of morale and encouragement when things are looking grim.

 

[ppp]

First of all, thank you for choosing an interesting set of examples.

np.

Second of all, I would like to make a distinction between evil actions (such as murder) and judicial punishment. I believe that God is as he describes himself to be in Exodus 34, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

The example you have given does not a represent a distinction. The example you have given is the perpetrator's faction writing their own press. I fully expect the writers of the Bible to be congratulatory of their god and their faction members. This is evidence of loyalty. It is not evidence of correctness or morality.

Even when it comes to human justice, there is a massive difference between murdering someone in cold blood and serving someone the death penalty for evil actions they know someone has committed.

There is not.

Even when it comes to human justice, there is a massive difference between murdering someone in cold blood and serving someone the death penalty for evil actions they know someone has committed. Many of the examples that you mentioned are examples of judicial punishment, God serving justice to those who committed evil against God and others.

Let me short circuit this here. I am not starting from the assumption that god, or gods laws are moral, just, sensible, or sane.

Judicial punishment is not self justifying. All that means is that the group with power made laws and punished people under those laws. There is nothing about the label 'judicial punishments' to indicate that the laws are just, or that the enforcers of those laws are anything but morally bankrupt.

You are trying to excuse immorality with legality. The mere existence of a law does not justify the law, or the punishment for breaking that law. A law can be immoral. Many are.

the flood was a judgement against mankind because they were filled with evil,

Why is genocide considered immoral in the real world? This is not a hollow question. I am curious about your position on this.

Even in human justice, we often punish entire groups of people for the actions and orders of their leaders (take Hitler's Germany).

IIRC, we punished people for the actions that they took. Not for the actions of their leaders, but specifically for following immoral orders. If we did punish entire groups for the actions of their leaders, then we acted immorally and were wrong to do so.

Please do not assume that I will cut God slack on the basis of, Well. humans did it, too. If humans did it too, it was also wrong.

Admittedly, the practice of paying a bride price and marrying someone who you raped is a far from ideal situation,

You are literally forcing someone to be owned by their rapist, and to be raped over and over for the rest of their life while you stand by, and shrug cluelessly.

If you reject that the God of the Bible is who decides what is right and wrong, why would you say that things like murder, torture, and rape are ultimately wrong?

I will answer this separately.

 

[blü 2]

First of all, thank you for choosing an interesting set of examples. Second of all, I would like to make a distinction between evil actions (such as murder) and judicial punishment. I believe that God is as he describes himself to be in Exodus 34, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

As against that you have ─

God's rules for how to sell your daughter (Exodus 21:7)

God's rules for the massacre of surrendered populations eg Numbers 31:9-17
and Joshua 6:17, 6:21 (Jericho)

God's rules for mass rape of the young females (the same, Numbers 31:9-17)

God's affection for human sacrifice ─
of the firstborn Exodus 22:29-30
of Jephthah's daughter Judges 11:30-39
of the descendants of Saul, by impalement 2 Samuel 21
and of course with Jesus in the NT.

God's view of infanticide and abortion Hosea 13:16

and of course more.

Many of the examples that you mentioned are examples of judicial punishment, God serving justice to those who committed evil against God and others.

Yeah, but [he] would say that, wouldn't [he]. This is the God who sent [his] own son on a suicide mission to die by crucifixion, and why a benevolent and just God would do that when [he] can have anything [he] likes with one snap of those omnipotent fingers. escapes me altogether.

The method chosen was also mindbogglingly inefficient ─ two thousand years later there are still people on earth who've never heard of Jesus. Nothing stopped [him] from saying to the entire world, Hey, everyone, I've decided to forgive you your sins! *fingersnap*

For example, according to Genesis 6:5-7 the flood was a judgement against mankind because they were filled with evil, and God took no joy in carrying this punishment out.

But that's only folktale, and what God was particularly cross about was that the person who screwed everything up was [him].

Eve, as the first and most important representative of womankind had the punishment for her actions visited upon those she represented.

Why should Eve be punished for anything? At the time she ate the fruit, God had specifically denied her knowledge of good and evil, therefore it was impossible for her to intend to do wrong, therefore it was impossible for her to sin. Same for Adam.

And of course, if you ever get round to actually reading the Garden story, you'll find that it never mentions sin, not even once. The reason ─ the only reason ─ God pitched them out of the Garden was to protect [his] own position, as [he] frankly states in Genesis 3:22-3.

Oh, and on top of that, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear, not least in Ezekiel 18:20, sin is NOT inheritable. To which you should say, Of course not! What kind of dingbat God would punish B for the crimes of A, for goodness' sake!

AND further to the Garden story, although it's only a story, aren't you glad that ─ thanks to Eve ─ humans can tell right from wrong? And if you are, doesn't that make Eve a wonderful symbolic figure for humanity? Prometheus only brought us fire, but Eve's gift is the basis of all humanity and decency and benevolence.

When Pharaoh (through the people of Egypt) mistreated God's people and then repeatedly refused God's command to let them go, God visited Pharaoh's punishment against those under his rule. Part of being a leader is knowing that those you lead can (and will) suffer for your mistakes.

No, you're being unfair. The text is specific (Exodus 7:3-4, 7:13), that it was God who hardened Pharaoh's heart and made him forbid the Exodus. God for some deviant reason was using Pharaoh as a puppet. Fortunately that too is only a story, but the moral is again grossly offensive.

 

[ppp]

Also, I'm curious about something. If you reject that the God of the Bible is who decides what is right and wrong, why would you say that things like murder, torture, and rape are ultimately wrong?

You do not believe that your god says those actions are ultimately wrong. Or as you put it, wrong on a universal basis independent of time, place, culture and context. You just spent an entire post attempting to justify his killing, torturing, sexual assaults, and his knowing and willing complicity in those action by others. You used legality, practicality and human legalism as said justifications. You appealed to the social structure. You appealed to what was possible at the time.

Your post justifying your god's actions was all about time, place culture and context.

As such I reject the implicit assumption underlying your question ==> That your god (should he exist) would represent an ultimate standard. I do not need to justify my position against an 'ultimate' standard as you have defined it. Because you do not have an ultimate standard. You only claim to.

As someone so aptly said, There are no real problems of non-theistic morality that are solved by theism.