Who is God?

[blü 2]

I'm sorry blu, but you are describing nothing more than the sentiments of a 10 year old child - one who requires placebos in order to function somewhat competently in society, or who embraces fallacies as truth despite the influx of undermining evidence. Mature men (over 18 - 20), do not indulge in ludicrous notions or direct their lives around principles that are demonstrably refuted. Except for some fringe radical groups.

Condescension won't get you very far ─ just gives the impression you don't know how to respond to the points I was making. Ah well...

Some of the leading theologians that have ever lived were absolutely brilliant and extremely sound of mind. Philosophizing and demonstrating the virtue of a holy life, the hypocrisy of wickedness, the cowardice of lying, the strength and character of sacrifice, the profundity of abstinence etc... Theses are not imaginary ideals - show me a thief or liar, and I'll show you an insecure man - one who doesn't even trust himself. Show me a promiscuous person, and I'll show you a crass and vulgar person, or a bimbo.

As for theologians, if they find belief in things found only in the imagination helps them to be good people, I have no argument. (As for apologists, they take the role of the defense attorney ─ truth is simply one of those things you can use in argument if it works to get the client off the hook, otherwise who needs it?)

You act as if you've never told a lie, never sneaked another biscuit, never invented an excuse to cover your rear. If that's true then you have no insight into why humans do such things. If you have done those things, you seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of your position.

But never mind.

My own morality is of a familiar kind ─ do no harm, and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. That's the ideal, though of course I've fallen short of it at times. Still if only God subscribed to the do-no-harm idea ─ instead of urging the Israelites to conduct invasive war, massacres of conquered populations, mass rapes, human sacrifices, murderous religious intolerance, women as property, slavery as a norm, sending [his] son on a pointless suicide mission and so on ─ then at least [he]'d serve as an ideal of decency rather than as a Bronze Age barbarian.

These ideals are real, and are demonstrably so. Man does not make up entities in his head, so that his life may be better than without them.

Of course Man does ─ how else are all the countless gods of history, and even now of the world, to be explained?

Countless martyrs have gone to flames for their faith, have been stoned to death, tortured or imprisoned, persecuted and confiscated of their possessions, etc...

Yes, but that's scarcely confined to Christianity. Look at all the Jews martyred in Christian pogroms down the centuries. Look at the mutually murderous wars of Christian and Muslim. Look at the history of the states of India and Pakistan, what's now China, everywhere.

As I mentioned, we're all born with evolved moral instincts, one of which is a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and in this context, the various martyrs and more universally, the willingness of soldiers of all tribes and colors to die for their comrades.

 

[dybmh]

Why eliminate? Just change their mentality.

Again, that doesn't accomplish the negative incentive. If I know that God will simply magically flip a switch in my mind to correct me and fix everything, then I can do what ever I want. There are no real consequences. I can go burn my neighbor's house down. God will fix it. I can go rob the store down the street. God will fix it. I can torture my dog. God will fix it.

See how that works? It's not a good system.

Detestable? Why? They were all his creations.

They were rapists, murders, kidnappers, child-sacrificers, liars, etc... All of them. Every single one of them.

Yes they were God's creations. It gets very complicated trying to explain what happened to them and how they became the way they were and why it was necessary. It requires understanding how a reality of only God in the beginning can become a reality that includes material multiplicity.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. then I can do what ever I want.
They were rapists, murders, kidnappers, child-sacrificers, liars, etc... All of them. Every single one of them.
It requires understanding how a reality of only God in the beginning can become a reality that includes material multiplicity.

If this is done in the correct way, then you would do what God wants you to do. But evidence shows that if it was God, then he never did anything in the correct way.
Now, that is what your book says. Is there any corroborating evidence?
Wikipedia tells me that warfare was rare among Canaanites (Phoenicians) and their city-states were fiercely independent.
From where did this God arose?

 

[dybmh]

If this is done in the correct way, then you would do what God wants you to do. But evidence shows that if it was God, then he never did anything in the correct way.

Oh? What's the correct way to go from a reality of only God to a reality which includes material multiplicity?

Now, that is what your book says. Is there any corroborating evidence?

The book contains a lesson. Many lessons actually. Once those lessons are determined, then they can be evaluated against reality. If the lesson is true and useful, then the book can be judged as good. Whether or not the details of the story literally happened as stated are irrelevant to the lesson contained.

Wikipedia tells me that warfare was rare among Canaanites (Phoenicians) and their city-states were fiercely independent.

Irrelevant.

From where did this God arose?

God is eternal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh? What's the correct way to go from a reality of only God to a reality which includes material multiplicity?

The book contains a lesson. Many lessons actually. Once those lessons are determined, then they can be evaluated against reality. If the lesson is true and useful, then the book can be judged as good. Whether or not the details of the story literally happened as stated are irrelevant to the lesson contained.

Irrelevant.

God is eternal.

Material multiplicity is an illusion. It is physical energy at the base of all things in the universe.
The laws supposed to have been given by any God are social rules of the society in which those people lived. Many of the laws are out of date (prohibition of pork), many are outright evil (against women and LGBTQ).
Why irrelevent. We were talking of how your God treated Canaanites.
Existence of God and his being eternal has no proof. It is an assumption.
dybmh, we have made out position clear to each other. Our views differ. You are a friend. Let us drop this discussion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The laws supposed to have been given by any God are social rules of the society in which those people lived. Many of the laws are out of date (prohibition of pork), many are outright evil (against women and LGBTQ).

They are not out of date .. there is no compulsion to eat pork, unless there is nothing else to eat.
Furthermore, what you see as "evil", would not have been considered so, even a few decades ago.

 

[dybmh]

Material multiplicity is an illusion. It is physical energy at the base of all things in the universe.

If you want to understand my point of view, then we need to stay on topic.

The laws supposed to have been given by any God are social rules of the society in which those people lived. Many of the laws are out of date (prohibition of pork), many are outright evil (against women and LGBTQ).

Off topic.

Why irrelevent. We were talking of how your God treated Canaanites.

We are talking about the unholy nations in the story.

Existence of God and his being eternal has no proof. It is an assumption.

It has proof in the story. God is a concept which is defined in the Hebrew Bible. This is the subject of our discussion.

dybmh, we have made out position clear to each other. Our views differ. You are a friend. Let us drop this discussion.

I disagree. I don't think my position is clearly understood. And there is no reason why we cannot disagree bitterly and remain friends. Regardless, understanding each other's point of view can only make a friendship stronger.

 

[Alien826]

What I'm saying is, creating both a realm of perfection and a realm of imperfection+remedy is better than only 1 realm of perfection. It answers the question: Why didn't God create a perfect world from the very beginning?


I agree, but the trend seems to be in the positive. So, it seems to me that if the plan was benevolent, it's working.

What you seem to be overlooking is the collateral damage in the imperfect world. Two realms can be seen as better than one if they are both acceptable to those involved. The perfect world is acceptable because it's, well, perfect. A flawed world where lots of people suffer during the time between creation and "fixing", not so much.

Unless of course it's all seen from the outside where it's just like a painting which isn't sentient.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The perfect world is acceptable because it's, well, perfect. A flawed world where lots of people suffer during the time between creation and "fixing", not so much..

It is what it is.
As far as I understand it, there will always be suffering, just as there will always be pleasure.

Following a righteous path eventually leads to a lasting pleasure, whilst turning away from righteousness,
eventually leads to a lasting suffering.
The suffering and pleasure in this life is temporary. It is the sequel that matters most.

 

[dybmh]

What you seem to be overlooking is the collateral damage in the imperfect world. Two realms can be seen as better than one if they are both acceptable to those involved. The perfect world is acceptable because it's, well, perfect. A flawed world where lots of people suffer during the time between creation and "fixing", not so much.

Unless of course it's all seen from the outside where it's just like a painting which isn't sentient.

I'm not overlooking it. I accept it. And I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just being honest. I think I understand it ( the collateral damage ). Understanding it has several benefits. Not just acceptance which brings significant peace of mind, but also a path forward in this imperfect/perfect world.

Many people have found peace, saticfaction, and bliss from detachment. Understanding brings that and more because it is both detached and attached simultaneously.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not overlooking it. I accept it. And I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just being honest. I think I understand it. Understanding it has several benefits. Not just acceptance which brings significant peace of mind, but also a path forward in this imperfect/perfect world.

Many people have found peace, saticfaction, and bliss from detachment. Understanding brings that and more because it is both detached and attached simultaneously.

As long as you understand what works for you might not work for me and so in reverse.

 

[dybmh]

As long as you understand what works for you might not work for me and so in reverse.

You caught me In a good way. It's true, I think everyone is capable of understanding. And maybe I'm wrong. I need to spend some time thinking about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You caught me In a good way. It's true, I think everyone is capable of understanding. And maybe I'm wrong. I need to spend some time thinking about it.

Just ask me if you want to. I am in a part a pain in the ***, because I am neuro diverse, but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand and accept diversity and still do God.

 

[Alien826]

I'm not overlooking it. I accept it. And I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just being honest. I think I understand it ( the collateral damage ). Understanding it has several benefits. Not just acceptance which brings significant peace of mind, but also a path forward in this imperfect/perfect world.

Many people have found peace, saticfaction, and bliss from detachment. Understanding brings that and more because it is both detached and attached simultaneously.

Of course I'm coming from the position that everything is just part of the material world, and any discussion is contingent on whether a god entity of a particular nature (assumed for the purpose of discussion) might or might not behave in one or another way.

Given that, I agree with you. Things are as they are and there's no point railing about it. Acceptance is the first step in the process of dealing with problems. Most so called problems stem from either the way the world works (with no intent driving it) or our "animal" nature, which has both good and bad features.

I'm a humanist enough to think that we have the seeds of redemption in us, but realist enough to fear that we have screwed up the ecosystem so badly that we may have run out of time.

 

[DNB]

Whatever happens is in the material realm - even the attributes that you mention. Is there any other realm? What evidence you have for that?

You don't believe in love? How does a tree or rock, amoeba or fly understand love? Can a bear or rodent love unconditionally. Can a dog love someone simply for their personality?
Love transcends the flesh i.e. material realm.

That's my proof.

 

[DNB]

Condescension won't get you very far ─ just gives the impression you don't know how to respond to the points I was making. Ah well...

Not sure where you construe the condescension? If it makes a difference, I wasn't calling you the 10 year old, I was remarking how you were describing theists as 10 year olds, claiming that they require imaginary friends or entities in order to cope.
Again, that does not fit the profile of the major religious figures throughout history: they defied the authorities, they never compromised their faith, they made sacrifices for others, etc... These are not the dispositions of feeble and trepid men, who are prone to obeying figments of their imagination.

You act as if you've never told a lie, never sneaked another biscuit, never invented an excuse to cover your rear. If that's true then you have no insight into why humans do such things. If you have done those things, you seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of your position.

For the sake of this argument, I am the biggest sinner in the room - that is why I am fully qualified to induce the catalyst behind such behaviour. When I'm dishonest, it is due to cowardice - for a man who can't tell the truth, is one who can't handle the truth. When I look at women in a lascivious manner, it is not derived from respect or admiration, but pure contemptuous lust - objectifying the women who actually has a heart, a brain, and a personality. When I cheat, it is from weakness - one who can't play by the same rules as everyone else. I can go on all night.
I haven't a clue where you see the hypocrisy in my previous statement?

My own morality is of a familiar kind ─ do no harm, and treat others with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense. That's the ideal, though of course I've fallen short of it at times.

You take for granted you desire or concern, for being fair, empathetic and just - God endowed you with this sensibility, and not the big bang - rocks do not care about the trees, and an lion does not care about the gazelle, its family, nor its feelings.

Still if only God subscribed to the do-no-harm idea ─ instead of urging the Israelites to conduct invasive war, massacres of conquered populations, mass rapes, human sacrifices, murderous religious intolerance, women as property, slavery as a norm, sending [his] son on a pointless suicide mission and so on ─ then at least [he]'d serve as an ideal of decency rather than as a Bronze Age barbarian.

God exterminated extremely wicked nations, and He gave them centuries to repent. All men have the innate sense that it is reasonable and incumbent to treat others as themselves, and that anything else is hypocrisy and inciting. And, yet, they still persist in their selfish, subversive and perverted ways. God wants all men to repent, but some just refuse.

Yes, but that's scarcely confined to Christianity. Look at all the Jews martyred in Christian pogroms down the centuries. Look at the mutually murderous wars of Christian and Muslim. Look at the history of the states of India and Pakistan, what's now China, everywhere.
As I mentioned, we're all born with evolved moral instincts, one of which is a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and in this context, the various martyrs and more universally, the willingness of soldiers of all tribes and colors to die for their comrades.

My point was that men who show such conviction, courage, and devotion, in regards to defending their faith (not their country), are not deluded as you claim. Defending a spouse, family, or one's neighborhood, is not the same as defending one's faith. If you don't defend your neighborhood, you will suffer the consequences. But, if you don't defend your faith, you will not be persecuted.
Perhaps you missed the point?

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are not out of date .. there is no compulsion to eat pork, unless there is nothing else to eat.
Furthermore, what you see as "evil", would not have been considered so, even a few decades ago.

And if there are other things too, then what is the problem is eating pork?
Yes, times change, laws change. Now your God has sent his last messenger. There cannot be any change in Quranic laws. Marriage of pre-puberty girls is OK. Some of these laws are considered evil today, like those about slavery, beating of wives, etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It has proof in the story. God is a concept which is defined in the Hebrew Bible. This is the subject of our discussion.

I disagree. I don't think my position is clearly understood. And there is no reason why we cannot disagree bitterly and remain friends. Regardless, understanding each other's point of view can only make a friendship stronger.

OK. Assured of your continued friendship I ask (in a Buddhist manner) - 'Bhante, teach me that'.
How one replaced all your other tribal Gods and Goddesses?
Where from did Moses get the idea - Akhenaten or Zoroaster?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is the sequel that matters most.

Any evidence of the sequel?

Can a bear or rodent love unconditionally? That's my proof.

Your God does not love unconditionally. Remember, he does not just have a heaven, but a hell as well where he can inter souls for an eternity of torture.
Horrible.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK. Assured of your continued friendship I ask (in a Buddhist manner) - 'Bhante, teach me that'.
How one replaced all your other tribal Gods and Goddesses?
Where from did Moses get the idea - Akhenaten or Zoroaster?

I say the following without thinking you will believe it, but I believe it. Moses had a special relationship with God. And that's all I'm going to say about it now.