Why Does the Biblical God Not Want People To Make an Informed Decision?

[Enoughie]

Again, the Biblical God has nothing to do about the decisions we make on how to live our lives. You are being too literalist. We have freewill and the power to use it as we please, as long as we are aware of the law of cause and effect.

Please refer to this post for what I mean by "informed decision":
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2317007-post105.html

If the laws of cause and effect in reality contradict the rules that the biblical god dictates, and there is no evidence to support what the bible claims, which should we follow? The bible or reality?

If god makes you choose between two pills, and you know that one of them can kill you, but you have absolutely no knowledge about which one it is, no ability to find out, and god wouldn't tell you, what is the meaning of you having free will in choosing between the pills?

It's meaningless. It's just an excuse for the "ungodly" behavior of the biblical god.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Enoughie]

Usually when people say G-d is benevolent, they are saying he is all loving. I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
I believe that G-d is a sadist. Can a sadist love? Yes. Can a sadist be merciful? Yes. Can a sadist be good? Yes. A sadist can be all that and more, but only when they want to be.
Hell, with all the s*** he has put the Jews through, he has to be a sadist. Especially when you consider Jews were told they were his "chosen" people.
I know you are going to ask why I would chose to follow or believe in a G-d that can be cruel. I will answer, because I am a masochist. It is the only answer to give.

Well, you might as well believe in a god who is incompetent, or imperfect, or clueless and confused. But that certainly cannot be the true God of the world (if there is one).

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

Well, you might as well believe in a god who is incompetent, or imperfect, or clueless and confused. But that certainly cannot be the true God of the world (if there is one).

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

Why? Because I told you I believe G-d isn't all loving or all merciful? Because it doesn't fit your concept of the G-d you were hoping I would defend? He doesn't need defending.

You keep asking about informed decisions. Well, I made one about G-d based on my own knowledge and understanding of what G-d is. You are still questioning, still trying to understand. I cannot make this decision for you, but I can provide feedback on what I have seen and experienced.

Look,I know I view G-d differently than even most Jews. I make no apologies for this. I believe G-d is a sadist. It works for me, because I could not understand how an all-loving G-d would allow such horrible things to happen to nice people.

 

[Enoughie]

Why? Because I told you I believe G-d isn't all loving or all merciful? Because it doesn't fit your concept of the G-d you were hoping I would defend? He doesn't need defending.

You keep asking about informed decisions. Well, I made one about G-d based on my own knowledge and understanding of what G-d is. You are still questioning, still trying to understand. I cannot make this decision for you, but I can provide feedback on what I have seen and experienced.

Look,I know I view G-d differently than even most Jews. I make no apologies for this. I believe G-d is a sadist. It works for me, because I could not understand how an all-loving G-d would allow such horrible things to happen to nice people.

No. Because it is an axiomatic impossibility.

While I am agnostic about the existence of God, I base my view on the fact that if we were to take all the evidence we know about the world, we could model it in a way that shows either a god exists (and this god must be perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent), or a god does not exist.

Which means, it is impossible to conclude whether such a god exists. Therefore, I am agnostic about the existence of such a god.

Based on this knowledge, I can look at religious texts, and see if the gods of scripture (Jehovah, Jesus, Allah) meet this definition of God (perfect, omnipotent, benevolent). If they don't meet this definition, I can safely reject these gods as non-existent. If you claim that your god doesn't meet this definition, then I can safely reject such a god as non-existent as well.

I think you based your decision, and your view of God on a more narrow view of the history of the Jewish people, and the stories of the Old Testament. But you're not looking at all the evidence we have about the universe. So you come to erroneous conclusions.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

How can you be so sure?

 

[Enoughie]

How can you be so sure?

About what? About my conclusions, or about yours?

I'm not sure how you reached your conclusions, I'm only suggesting what could be the case.

Regarding my understanding and my conclusion - these are the only two options that fit all the data. Either there is a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent God, or there isn't.

Everything else just doesn't fit the data, so it must be rejected.

I'm about as sure of it as I'm sure of the laws of physics.

From all the monotheistic religions, I prefer Judaism, because it is probably closest to [metaphysical] reality, and it says nothing about fabrications such as an afterlife, heaven, hell, or even the need to believe in God (none of these are in the Old Testament). But I can't see the O.T. as an eternal law book given by God. I can see how many of these laws could apply some 3000 years ago, but not today.


_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Rakhel]

About what? About my conclusions, or about yours?

I'm not sure how you reached your conclusions, I'm only suggesting what could be the case.

Regarding my understanding and my conclusion - these are the only two options that fit all the data. Either there is a perfect, omnipotent, and benevolent God, or there isn't.

Everything else just doesn't fit the data, so it must be rejected.

I'm about as sure of it as I'm sure of the laws of physics.

I reached my conclusion based on the data I had.
Sure, it is not the same data that is available to you, but nowhere does ot say we have to agree on the concept of G-d. I simply cannot believe in an all-loving G-d. It does not fit with the data I have. and, no, I am not basing this on a narrow Jewish perspective. I am using data I collected from world history.

From all the monotheistic religions, I prefer Judaism, because it is probably closest to [metaphysical] reality, and it says nothing about fabrications such as an afterlife, heaven, hell, or even the need to believe in God (none of these are in the Old Testament).

This is what I liked about Judaism. Also that it allowed for thought and questions. A lot of the churches I attended growing up didn't allow for thought. Forget about questions, they just looked at you as if you are a visitor from the moon. So I do understand where you are coming from.
Judaism just made the most sense.

But I can't see the O.T. as an eternal law book given by God. I can see how many of these laws could apply some 3000 years ago, but not today.

Not all of them are applicable anymore. The "third generation" laws for example.That was over centuries ago.
Some can't even be done because they only apply to a time when the temple is standing. Some can be...replaced with other actions. We can't do animal sacrifices because the temple isn't standing so we replaced it with prayer.

 

[Nerthus]

I believe that G-d is a sadist. Can a sadist love? Yes. Can a sadist be merciful? Yes. Can a sadist be good? Yes. A sadist can be all that and more, but only when they want to be.
Hell, with all the s*** he has put the Jews through, he has to be a sadist. Especially when you consider Jews were told they were his "chosen" people.
I know you are going to ask why I would chose to follow or believe in a G-d that can be cruel. I will answer, because I am a masochist. It is the only answer to give.

Yep, that's exactly why I could never worship such a God.

 

[Enoughie]

Not all of them are applicable anymore. The "third generation" laws for example.That was over centuries ago.
Some can't even be done because they only apply to a time when the temple is standing. Some can be...replaced with other actions. We can't do animal sacrifices because the temple isn't standing so we replaced it with prayer.

I'm aware of that. But I'm referring to the commandments that are supposed to be applicable today. Such as those relating to relationships and sexuality.

Maybe it made sense 3000 years ago to be against homosexuality. It was a matter of hygiene. There were no running water, so any form of sex was putting people in unnecessary danger. But today there's absolutely no reason to have such rules.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Maybe it made sense 3000 years ago to be against homosexuality. It was a matter of hygiene. There were no running water, so any form of sex was putting people in unnecessary danger. But today there's absolutely no reason to have such rules.

In all honesty, your claim that there is no reason to have rules against homosexuality is a matter of opinion. An argument can be made against homosexuality today, one that doesn't bother bringing up religion or stereotypical anecdotes to a supposed "gay disease".
If you are willing to discuss the possibility that certain practices that have become somewhat socially acceptable may still be condemned for reasons other than religion or homophobia, I'm game.

 

[waitasec]

In all honesty, your claim that there is no reason to have rules against homosexuality is a matter of opinion. An argument can be made against homosexuality today, one that doesn't bother bringing up religion or stereotypical anecdotes to a supposed "gay disease".
If you are willing to discuss the possibility that certain practices that have become somewhat socially acceptable may still be condemned for reasons other than religion or homophobia, I'm game.

opcorn:
this should be interesting...

 

[Enoughie]

In all honesty, your claim that there is no reason to have rules against homosexuality is a matter of opinion. An argument can be made against homosexuality today, one that doesn't bother bringing up religion or stereotypical anecdotes to a supposed "gay disease".
If you are willing to discuss the possibility that certain practices that have become somewhat socially acceptable may still be condemned for reasons other than religion or homophobia, I'm game.

That is precisely what I want to discuss.

(See here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312192-post61.html)

What sensible argument can you bring up against homosexuality?

Also, what I presented was not just my opinion. It was an argument rooted in reason and facts.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Here's the thing: in my limited experience of the world, which includes experiencing this world on three continents, I've seen one common theme underlying the societies I've experienced. Each society, culture, civilization(all of those) was built on top of one basic unit, the family. Like it or not, homosexual practice disrupts the continuity of the basic family. You no longer have generation followed by generation of a family once a significant portion of said family practices "alternative lifestyles" of any kind. Eventually, this leads to the disassembly of society. Examples include: Athens, Rome, Byzantium, Memphis(not the one in Tennessee). Are we to be so bold as to suggest that we're immune to the influence the breakdown of the basic family will have due to the permissive attitudes towards homosexuality?

 

[waitasec]

Here's the thing: in my limited experience of the world, which includes experiencing this world on three continents, I've seen one common theme underlying the societies I've experienced. Each society, culture, civilization(all of those) was built on top of one basic unit, the family. Like it or not, homosexual practice disrupts the continuity of the basic family. You no longer have generation followed by generation of a family once a significant portion of said family practices "alternative lifestyles" of any kind. Eventually, this leads to the disassembly of society. Examples include: Athens, Rome, Byzantium, Memphis(not the one in Tennessee). Are we to be so bold as to suggest that we're immune to the influence the breakdown of the basic family will have due to the permissive attitudes towards homosexuality?

you're looking at this with conservative eyes, it seems. and you're not seeing how this change can actually be a benefit for humanity, especially when adoption is concerned.
and there are studies that say children raised with same sex parents have normal self-esteem. this is what i call progress because it's a win win situation in the role it plays out in society.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

you're looking at this with conservative eyes, it seems. and you're not seeing how this change can actually be a benefit for humanity, especially when adoption is concerned.
and there are studies that say children raised with same sex parents have normal self-esteem. this is what i call progress because it's a win win situation in the role it plays out in society.

First, I didn't say anything against homosexuals adopting. Second, if a high enough percentage of a society is homosexual, exactly where will children come from to be adopted? It seems to me that, although homosexual couples have been known to produce offspring by indirect means, they typically don't. Historically, a population with a large homosexual population is a population in sharp decline. This further lends to my primary point that the traditional family is the basic unit of a civilization.

ADD:
You further fail to address the question: Are we so bold to suggest that we're immune to the effect the breakdown of the basic family will have on our civilization?

 

[waitasec]

First, I didn't say anything against homosexuals adopting. Second, if a high enough percentage of a society is homosexual, exactly where will children come from to be adopted?

1st. nor did i imply you were.
i'm only pointing out the positive aspect of accepting homosexuality in society. adoption being one.
2nd. i'm not sure what you mean if a high percentage is homosexual.
are you saying people should deny their right to be who they are as homosexual beings? if you could elaborate this to avoid a misunderstanding would be helpful.

It seems to me that, although homosexual couples have been known to produce offspring by indirect means, they typically don't. Historically, a population with a large homosexual population is a population in sharp decline. This further lends to my primary point that the traditional family is the basic unit of a civilization.

can you provide a source?

here is a source that says children raised by homosexuals are well adjusted
Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

ADD:
You further fail to address the question: Are we so bold to suggest that we're immune to the effect the breakdown of the basic family will have on our civilization?

well i think i did address the question. you call it a breakdown, i call it progress.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I'll clarify. Whether or not it is socially acceptable to be a homosexual is a collective decision. In my opinion, making that decision is the beginning of the end of a culture. Further, such 'progress' destroyed three ancient civilizations before us, putting into place more barbaric and less tolerant successors.

 

[waitasec]

At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I'll clarify. Whether or not it is socially acceptable to be a homosexual is a collective decision.

are you saying society paves the way for a surge in homosexuality?
if that is what you are saying then what is wrong with that?
it's opening the door for closeted homosexuals.

In my opinion, making that decision is the beginning of the end of a culture. Further, such 'progress' destroyed three ancient civilizations before us, putting into place more barbaric and less tolerant successors.

ancient civilizations were not scientifically advanced either, had they been their society wouldn't have been destroyed. scientific advancements is now apart of our evolution, in vitro fertilization, for example.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

I don't think any level of scientific advancement would change this fact. The other cultures prided themselves in being "advanced" as well.

ADD: Evolution doesn't favor the smartest or the most advanced among us. Evolution favors those who breed more. Think on that for a moment.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think any level of scientific advancement would change this fact. The other cultures prided themselves in being "advanced" as well.

but they were not as advanced as we are today correct?

was in vitro at all possible then?