Hypocrisy starts at the top?

[firedragon]

That is what I'm saying; "god is a conceptual amalgamation of one's personal hopes and aspirations". And I am puzzled by those who seem to insist that such a conceptual amalgamation must be logically cohesive, and even mutually agreed upon by multiple theists. This makes no sense to me at all.

Is there any evidence that "god is a conceptual amalgamation of one's personal hopes and aspirations"? Or is it your attempt at filling the gap that has no evidence? Think about it. Is not that just made up?

Or do you have any rational argument? Theists have always believed that the concept of God is logically cohesive to use your own words, and they have always had logical arguments. What is your logical argument?

 

[blü 2]

Define love. For we most certainly do not define it in the same way.

Love, as I use the term here, means the bond that one human feels for particular others ─ one-to-one their parents, partner, children and friends, and more generally and abstractly various of the groups of which they're part ─ such that they feel and act on a positive desire and care to make good things happen and bad things not happen to the loved ones.

As parents we never used physical punishment, and did a lot of explaining instead, with rare deprivations or postponements at worst.

And if I were both loving and omnipotent I'd be able to cure the naughty, the immature, the irresponsible, the off-balance, the incomplete, the vicious, the sneaky, the emotionally damaged, the insane ─ and do so instantly.

And being able to do that, and being by definition loving, why would the omnipotent I want to send anyone to hell? To achieve what?

 

[Lain]

Love, as I use the term here, means the bond that one human feels for particular others ─ one-to-one their parents, partner, children and friends, and more generally and abstractly various of the groups of which they're part ─ such that they feel and act on a positive desire and care to make good things happen and bad things not happen to the loved ones.

As parents we never used physical punishment, and did a lot of explaining instead, with rare deprivations or postponements at worst.

And if I were both loving and omnipotent I'd be able to cure the naughty, the immature, the irresponsible, the off-balance, the incomplete, the vicious, the sneaky, the emotionally damaged, the insane ─ and do so instantly.

And being able to do that, and being by definition loving, why would the omnipotent I want to send anyone to hell? To achieve what?

I have no problem with how you define human love (although I am not opposed to beating children intrinsically, you seem to be here). I moreover think God abides in such a way. The problem I see is putting this onto gifts not owed, like salvation, and ignoring that good is perpetually given.

 

[Kenny]

I'm wondering how theists, particular those within the Abrahamic traditions, deal with the apparent double standard between god and his creations for what qualifies as moral behavior. For example:

1. God says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek if you are struck, but god eternally tortures those who offend him.
2. God says not to kill, but kills people for a multitude of reasons when they displease, inadvertently offend him, or even sometimes when they do obey him. Plus multiple ethnic genocides.
3. God says not to envy or be jealous, but is violently enraged by people worshipping other gods.
4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.
5. Corinthians 13:4 describes the attributes of love, and god is by all appearances the diametric opposite of these attributes.

What does it mean when god's moral commandments for humans, to instruct them how to be good, are laws that he routinely violates? When a law applies to one person but not another, isn't that moral relativism? Isn't a moral system that's dependent on a particular person's opinion (i.e. god's opinion) the definition of subjective morality?

How do you tell the difference between an evil god, and a god that declares itself to be good while it constantly violates all of the laws it establishes to delineate good behavior and also simultaneously violates human intuitions about moral goodness?

It is interesting on how shallow one can look at something to validate ones position.

Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I don't think you really care for a response. IMHO

 

[Kenny]

Exactly. My point is that the "grand overview" that we can't see, or the "reason behind it" that we don't understand, could just be that your god is evil. Or he could be inexplicably good. Or be a gaslighting moral hypocrite. And you have absolutely no method to tell the difference or show the difference, to know which one it is. Maybe you think your personal hopes and intuitions count as a method, but I don't.

I think this is a problem. I can imagine an infinite array of other gods that are obviously, unambiguously good, but you're stuck worshipping one that seems extremely sketchy. The Abrahamic god's OT description reads like the fan fiction an abusive bronze age warlord would write, which in Christianity is awkwardly merged with the NT preachings of an iron age SJW commune dweller. From an outsider perspective, there's too much baggage you you have to harmonize. Too many moral contradictions.

And here is a good example of a validation of my thought.

 

[AlexanderG]

It is interesting on how shallow one can look at something to validate ones position.

Somewhere in the recesses of my mind, I don't think you really care for a response. IMHO

You're not the first to impugn my motives and character in this thread, just because I've asked my questions. If instead of answering my questions, you feel to the need to personally attack me, then this may indicate a problem with the robustness of your faith rather than any flaw in my character. Yes? Is it difficult to accept that a sincere, well-intentioned, thoughtful person has considered your most cherished beliefs and concluded that they are likely nonsense? Does your mind brush away from that idea and redirect toward assumptions that I must instead be insincere or malicious? If so, why? Why might you conceptually employ this defensive reflex?

I'd be interested to have a discussion, and I've highlighted tensions and contradictions that I perceive in certain interpretations of Abrahamic faith traditions and then welcomed others to explain their take, even though I may still disagree. And you've concluded that I secretly don't want a response. Perhaps I'm not the one trying to shut off conversation, here?

How's that for impugning motives? We can both play!

 

[blü 2]

I have no problem with how you define human love (although I am not opposed to beating children intrinsically, you seem to be here). I moreover think God abides in such a way. The problem I see is putting this onto gifts not owed, like salvation, and ignoring that good is perpetually given.

So to put it briefly, if you were God you'd punish people for their defects, and if I were God I'd cure people of their defects.

We are universes apart.

 

[Lain]

So to put it briefly, if you were God you'd punish people for their defects, and if I were God I'd cure people of their defects.

We are universes apart.

To put it briefly: I do not entertain the notion that I could be God, because I'm not. I find it to be meaningless. We are universes apart, but not for this reason. And you making up stuff concerning what I think is noted. Perhaps that is why we are universes apart, one does that and one doesn't.

 

[blü 2]

To put it briefly: I do not entertain the notion that I could be God, because I'm not. I find it to be meaningless. We are universes apart, but not for this reason. And you making up stuff concerning what I think is noted. Perhaps that is why we are universes apart, one does that and one doesn't.

You want to punish, I want to heal. It's not complicated.

 

[Lain]

You want to punish, I want to heal. It's not complicated.

Ain't nothin' been said about me wanting to "punish." It's not that complicated. You're reading your own gloss.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Exactly. My point is that the "grand overview" that we can't see, or the "reason behind it" that we don't understand, could just be that your god is evil. Or he could be inexplicably good. Or be a gaslighting moral hypocrite. And you have absolutely no method to tell the difference or show the difference, to know which one it is. Maybe you think your personal hopes and intuitions count as a method, but I don't.

I think this is a problem. I can imagine an infinite array of other gods that are obviously, unambiguously good, but you're stuck worshipping one that seems extremely sketchy. The Abrahamic god's OT description reads like the fan fiction an abusive bronze age warlord would write, which in Christianity is awkwardly merged with the NT preachings of an iron age SJW commune dweller. From an outsider perspective, there's too much baggage you you have to harmonize. Too many moral contradictions.

So how do you harmonise the moral contradictions that seem integral to our existence? At least those of us who believe in a God have the option of arguing with Him.

 

[PureX]

Is there any evidence that "god is a conceptual amalgamation of one's personal hopes and aspirations"? Or is it your attempt at filling the gap that has no evidence? Think about it. Is not that just made up?

What about a "conceptual amalgamation" didn't you understand? And what about the term "made up" are you finding objectionable? Justice is just a "made up" ideal. So is perfection, and beauty, and honor, and infinity. Even what we call reality is a conceptual amalgamation "made up" in our minds.

Or do you have any rational argument? Theists have always believed that the concept of God is logically cohesive to use your own words, and they have always had logical arguments. What is your logical argument?

Existence is a mystery. We are not responsible for it. We do not understand it. Whatever is, and does, is clearly a power greater and smarter than we are. We call that power "God".

 

[firedragon]

What about a "conceptual amalgamation" didn't you understand? And what about the term "made up" are you finding objectionable? Justice is just a "made up" ideal. So is perfection, and beauty, and honor, and infinity. Even what we call reality is a conceptual amalgamation "made up" in our minds.

Dont get angry PureX. Chill.

You have an idea. I have no problem with ideas. Everyone has ideas.

The thing is, turn your idea into a hypothesis, and find a way to test it.

Existence is a mystery. We are not responsible for it. We do not understand it. Whatever is, and does, is clearly a power greater and smarter than we are. We call that power "God".

What you must try and understand PureX is that what you said above is a faith statement. Its not an argument.

Anyway, that's that. Cheers.

 

[Kenny]

You're not the first to impugn my motives and character in this thread, just because I've asked my questions. If instead of answering my questions, you feel to the need to personally attack me, then this may indicate a problem with the robustness of your faith rather than any flaw in my character. Yes?

OK.. Let's give it a try. I may have lumped you into a group of people who started the same way but never really wanted a discussion. Apparently, others have found the same problem since they reacted the same way. And, hopefully, you are different.

Let's start here.
.

4. God forces himself on an unmarried girl, with no personal or legal consequences.

Can you expand? There is no information, no quotes, no supportive documentation... just a blanket statement.

Would you give some supportive information? Who? How do you define "force"? In what way did God "force"? What was the "act" in question?

Obviously, these are important questions as a legal consequence requires a legal reason.

 

[blü 2]

Ain't nothin' been said about me wanting to "punish." It's not that complicated. You're reading your own gloss.

What then is your objection to simply healing them all? Straight away, on the spot? That's the obvious, loving and beneficial solution, especially given you're both omniscient and omnipotent.

 

[PureX]

Dont get angry PureX. Chill.

You have an idea. I have no problem with ideas. Everyone has ideas.

The thing is, turn your idea into a hypothesis, and find a way to test it.

Why are you assuming that I don't know this? If you've read any of my posts you'd know that I'm always reminding people that their idea of reality is not reality, just as their idea of God is not God. And we only hold these ideas as true because we've found them to function as true in our lives.

What you must try and understand PureX is that what you said above is a faith statement. Its not an argument.

I'm not arguing. And all statements are based on faith. Even the ones we "believe in".

 

[firedragon]

I'm not arguing. And all statements are based on faith. Even the ones we "believe in".

Argument does not mean arguing like you think mate.

Anyway, this is a tangent. So I shall withdraw.

Cheers.

 

[AlexanderG]

OK.. Let's give it a try. I may have lumped you into a group of people who started the same way but never really wanted a discussion. Apparently, others have found the same problem since they reacted the same way. And, hopefully, you are different.

Let's start here.
.

Can you expand? There is no information, no quotes, no supportive documentation... just a blanket statement.

Would you give some supportive information? Who? How do you define "force"? In what way did God "force"? What was the "act" in question?

Obviously, these are important questions as a legal consequence requires a legal reason.

Thanks, I appreciate the reconsideration.

I am referring to god impregnating Mary with his "holy spirit" without any consent, any discussion, and then sending a messenger to inform her of the deed. In the bible, if a man copulates with, rapes, and/or impregnates an unmarried woman, then certain legal consequences entail like paying her father and marrying the woman. Unless you want to make an argument from silence that this actually occurred, it seems on its face that god took no such responsibility according to the bible. He was instead the sort of deadbeat dad that these laws were presumably intended to prevent.

To me, this seems like hypocrisy. "I make the rules so I don't need to follow the rules." And as usual, god violated his own laws in a way that seems grotesquely and gratuitously immoral even by the low standards of the biblical laws in that time. Again, this also seems entirely consistent with what an actually evil god would do. Granted, women were basically chattel in biblical times and a married woman or female slave could legally be raped by her husband/owner, but there were still rules for things happening outside these relationship structures.

And please believe that I have no personal investment in this. Honestly, I have no emotional stake because I don't think any of it is true. Instead I am very curious how other people harmonize such things in their minds, because personally I would find it impossible to do so. I try to avoid what I consider cognitive dissonance although I acknowledge I probably still have some. I'm coming at this from the perspective of wondering how our human minds carry on with such ideas.

 

[Lain]

What then is your objection to simply healing them all? Straight away, on the spot? That's the obvious, loving and beneficial solution, especially given you're both omniscient and omnipotent.

Apparently you did not read that in none of my messages have I or will I entertain being God. I find it to be meaningless, as I said before.

 

[Kenny]

Thanks, I appreciate the reconsideration.

I am referring to god impregnating Mary with his "holy spirit" without any consent, any discussion, and then sending a messenger to inform her of the deed. In the bible, if a man copulates with, rapes, and/or impregnates an unmarried woman, then certain legal consequences entail like paying her father and marrying the woman. Unless you want to make an argument from silence that this actually occurred, it seems on its face that god took no such responsibility according to the bible. He was instead the sort of deadbeat dad that these laws were presumably intended to prevent.

To me, this seems like hypocrisy. "I make the rules so I don't need to follow the rules." And as usual, god violated his own laws in a way that seems grotesquely and gratuitously immoral even by the low standards of the biblical laws in that time. Again, this also seems entirely consistent with what an actually evil god would do. Granted, women were basically chattel in biblical times and a married woman or female slave could legally be raped by her husband/owner, but there were still rules for things happening outside these relationship structures.

And please believe that I have no personal investment in this. Honestly, I have no emotional stake because I don't think any of it is true. Instead I am very curious how other people harmonize such things in their minds, because personally I would find it impossible to do so. I try to avoid what I consider cognitive dissonance although I acknowledge I probably still have some. I'm coming at this from the perspective of wondering how our human minds carry on with such ideas.

OK... I understand the concept you are relating.. but it still seems to be a personal opinion, please note:

"I am referring to god impregnating Mary with his "holy spirit" without any consent, any discussion, and then sending a messenger to inform her of the deed. In the bible, if a man copulates with, rapes, and/or impregnates an unmarried woman, then certain legal consequences entail like paying her father and marrying the woman."

Do you have a supportive documentation that there was no discussion and that it wasn't done with consent? Or are you just making a statement by what you have heard or imagined?