God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[huckelberry]

Marcus, I think it is possible that Mg chose the portion of Stems comment which made the most sense and fit best with what MG sees as Mormon strength. The rest of Stems comments seems rather dubious. I do not know a reason to think the creator of the universe is an insecure tyrant in need of worship to prop up his ego.

Why else for any of this? If God sat with none others in any eternally sublime condition, why create others who are required to worship him eternally if they wish to be saved with him, where they will continue to worship him eternally? I know this is not a nice sounding way to frame it for a believer's perspective but how else can we possibly view it, given a God as the traditional views teach?

I suppose the human imagination might be able to create that image but it is certainly a substantial distance from what traditional Jewish or Christian beliefs has understood. Stem mentions god as wholly other. This is a phrase that is not widespread or based upon standard creeds. Some theologians have experimented with it. I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

So are you suggesting he is like humans? In what way? Of course humans aren't immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. When traditional views of God are shared it really amounts to describing a nothingness to me by using words that mean very little to anyone other than used as placeholders for mysterious. Apparently the more such descriptions get used the more mysterious he's supposed to be. It sounds to me the traditional views embrace contradictions in God. That's what they seem to like. This contradiction appears to be only one of many.

Stem, you write ," why else any of this" I am lost as to what this you may have in mind. I find myself thinking of this beautiful world and the fascinating wonderful collection of people animals plants that we live with. I find myself thinking of the planets and the brilliance of the sun and the galaxy of suns.

Are you seriously able to think all this is to collect some people to just and simply worship him forever? What in the world is this worship anyway? Singing hymns? Immensity reduced to triviality.

You end your comments by saying "this contradiction appears to be only one of many" Perhaps you were in a bit of a rush. You have not specified any contradiction just opined that they exist. So what contradiction is only one of many?
/////

Oh and I did not intend to suggest a way God was like humans I was suggesting you may be risking an assumption that god is like humans. I find myself doubting my own comment on that. No human would be as ridiculous as to create humanity just to be worshiped by humanity.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, you write ," why else any of this" I am lost as to what this you may have in mind. I find myself thinking of this beautiful world and the fascinating wonderful collection of people animals plants that we live with. I find myself thinking of the planets and the brilliance of the sun and the galaxy of suns.

Are you seriously able to think all this is to collect some people to just and simply worship him forever? What in the world is this worship anyway? Singing hymns? Immensity reduced to triviality.

Its a good question that few tend to answer. It sounds to me like worshipping God simply means believe that he's there, greater than everything else, and we ought to think of him in awe or something. I recall as a believer when fellow believers said we had to worship God I was perplexed what we meant a little as you suggest. When we sit and sing hymns of him or think of him as we partake of communion or sacrament...Sure...I guess. Praise his name? Seems to work. Pray to him? yep. Hold a place inside us revering him? I think so. I guess all of that and perhaps more, since believers tend to do more things for him or in his name (and yet we know "many" of those believers will be coldly told He never knew them...never ever...never paid attention to them or noticed them. Or something.)

Anyway, the other day I was listening to a podcast and the guy reminded me of a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, which if referenced usually gets Christians excited because many declared Craig the winner. But Harris said something that was quoted in the podcast. I went back and transcribed a few lines. Here they are:

You'll be tortured in hell for eternity. Now is there the slightest evidence for this? No...It just says so in Mark 9, Matthew 13 and Revelation 14.... So God created the cultural isolation of the Hindus. He engineered the circumstances of their deaths in ignorance of revelation. And then he created the penalty for this ignorance which is an eternity of conscious torment in fire.

On the other hand, on Dr. Craig's account, your run of the mill serial killer, in America, who spent his life raping and torturing children need only come to God, come to Jesus on death row. And after a final meal of fried Chicken, he's going to spend an eternity in heaven after death. One thing should be crystal clear, this vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability.

Please notice the double standard that people like Dr Craig use to exonerate God from all of this evil. We're told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good. But when someone like myself points out the rather obvious compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust because he visits suffering on innocent people on a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath. We're told that God is mysterious. Who can understand God's will? Yet this is precisely...this merely human understanding of God's will...this is precisely what believers use to establish God's will in the first place. If something good happens to a Christian. He feels some bliss when he's praying, or he sees some positive change in his life. And we're told that God is good. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents arms and drowned, we're told that God is mysterious. This is how you play tennis without the net.

And I want to suggest to you, that its not only tiresome when otherwise intelligent people speak this way, it is morally reprehensible. This kind of faith is really the perfection of narcissism. God loves me...don't you know? He cured me of my eczema. He makes me feel so good while singing in Church. And just when we were giving up hope he found a banker who was willing to reduce my mother's mortgage. Given all that this God of yours does not accomplish in the lives of others. Given the misery that is being imposed on some helpless child at this instant. This kind of faith is obscene. To think in this way is to fail to reason honestly or to care sufficiently about the suffering of other human beings.

Harsh talk, for sure. But I think his point is pretty sound.

You end your comments by saying "this contradiction appears to be only one of many" Perhaps you were in a bit of a rush. You have not specified any contradiction just opined that they exist. So what contradiction is only one of many?
/////

I thought you pointed out the contradiction in this case:

I think it is ironic to say because God is wholly unlike us he is like a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship, obviously contradicting the idea that God is unlike humans.

I believe you are saying God can't be a petty insecure tyrant and wholly other...that'd be a contradiction. But if scripture is to believed God is a petty insecure tyrant who demands worship and those afterward, theologians and philosophers of theology, speak of him as being wholly other, and tend to try and force their understanding of him on scripture. In this case scripture is usually ignored and the philosophical God replaces him to settle the contradiction. To me its all just very confused contradicting ideas about a character everyone tends to imagine exists for their own benefit.

Oh and I did not intend to suggest a way God was like humans I was suggesting you may be risking an assumption that god is like humans. I find myself doubting my own comment on that. No human would be as ridiculous as to create humanity just to be worshiped by humanity.

Saying God as taught in the scriptures is like humans is in no way an assumption. God is treated as if he's like humans all over scripture. That many in the millennia after scripture battled out a God who isn't humanlike hoping to make sense of their religious affiliations isn't as interesting as we like to think. Its simply an effort to re-define God and replace their source of belief with what they really want. At least that's what it seems like to me.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DS,

Thanks for taking the time to transcribe those comments. I don’t have anything to add because your post is tidy; I just appreciate the high effort.

I mean. I can add a comment because otherwise I’m low-effort posting. I suppose this is why believers eventually bounce on their faith because it’s nonsensical and irrational, OR as we’ve seen over and over again the believer just invents their own non-biblical god. ‘My god is very sweet and just loves people’ doesn’t fly when that ****er smokes people left and right, biblically speaking of course. Would a believer allow a repentant rapist and murderer in their home? Maybe, but they’d be foolish to do so.

- Doc

[Rivendale]

DS,

Thanks for taking the time to transcribe those comments. I don’t have anything to add because your post is tidy; I just appreciate the high effort.

I mean. I can add a comment because otherwise I’m low-effort posting. I suppose this is why believers eventually bounce on their faith because it’s nonsensical and irrational, OR as we’ve seen over and over again the believer just invents their own non-biblical god. ‘My god is very sweet and just loves people’ doesn’t fly when that ****er smokes people left and right, biblically speaking of course. Would a believer allow a repentant rapist and murderer in their home? Maybe, but they’d be foolish to do so.

- Doc

When Jim Bennet was asked if he would let his 15 year old daughter work in the Smith home here is what he said.

want to be on the record saying it no absolutely not i i i wouldn't want my 50 year old daughter
7:55:12
anywhere near that and i wouldn't want my 15 year old daughter anywhere near polygamy i mean i look at polygamy and i look at
7:55:19
plural marriage and i am so grateful that i didn't have to go through any
7:55:24
kind of of wrestle with the spirit to try to figure out whether or not i ought to practice it

Jim can't even justify the actions of his prophet yet continues to worship the tenants of the religion.

[huckelberry]

But stem I do not even vaguely believe that God is a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship. I am unsure I can get my head into the idea far enough to discuss it. I do not find that in scriptures even in the scriptures I feel could be distorted by the fear and anger of men.

Have you not considered that scripture is not the source of people believing in God. People believed before there was scripture. Scripture is a portion of the tradition of people thinking and trying to come to a better understanding of God. You seem determined to find problematic or ugly scripture interpretation and claim people are obligated to accept that. It is like the idea that all those people in China who never were taught the correct god are going to hell in order to satisfy the petty tyrant god. It is possible to take pieces of scripture and arrange that picture. People have done so. I see no reason to accept that and do not believe it. Neither do I think scripture has to be arranged that way.

One of the reasons that it is unworkable to claim scripture is some absolute finale statement is that it can be and is interpreted in different ways by people with different views. It is not possible to erase the thinking and experience of people who try to use the scriptures. That is why it appears to be futile to discuss that passage where some are told "I never knew you". I find you are quite capable of holding on to your interpretation with indifference to my quite different interpretation.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

… as we’ve seen over and over again the believer just invents their own non-biblical god.

But stem I do not even vaguely believe that God is a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship. I am unsure I can get my head into the idea far enough to discuss it. I do not find that in scriptures even in the scriptures I feel could be distorted by the fear and anger of men.

QED

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

But stem I do not even vaguely believe that God is a petty insecure tyrant in need of worship.

What is he then? I mean you've objected to that characterization but I don't know what God is to you that changes that. Does he save everyone in the end? If not, why not?

I am unsure I can get my head into the idea far enough to discuss it. I do not find that in scriptures even in the scriptures I feel could be distorted by the fear and anger of men.

I don't know what you mean by this. Who distorts scripture by the fear and anger of men? Or what's an example of that?

Have you not considered that scripture is not the source of people believing in God.

of course. It just so happens scripture is a source of what people used to believe. In large measure we're lucky much of it is ignored by believers so we don't go back some millennia to have to fend off terrible ideas about God and men. Sadly plenty of the bad ideas remain, stubbornly so.

People believed before there was scripture. Scripture is a portion of the tradition of people thinking and trying to come to a better understanding of God. You seem determined to find problematic or ugly scripture interpretation and claim people are obligated to accept that.

If I seem that way, then I apologize. I certainly don't mean to give that message. But if one rejects scripture and all of its elements, then what? Where does that leave a believer?

It is like the idea that all those people in China who never were taught the correct god are going to hell in order to satisfy the petty tyrant god. It is possible to take pieces of scripture and arrange that picture. People have done so. I see no reason to accept that and do not believe it. Neither do I think scripture has to be arranged that way.

That's nice to know. I guess most believers don't accept a God who wishes to torment most of humanity. The imagery of burning in hell, everlasting punishment or torment should be rejected. You speak, though, as if I invented that type of reading. That's just how the scriptures have been interpreted for millennia. If theologically inclined philosophers have decided the idea of eternal hell is problematic, then good for them. Because it obviously promotes evil things. But I do think many believers think there really is a hell reserved, for the most part, unbelievers, or those who believe in the wrong things about God. I'm certainly happy to know there are exceptions.

One of the reasons that it is unworkable to claim scripture is some absolute finale statement is that it can be and is interpreted in different ways by people with different views. It is not possible to erase the thinking and experience of people who try to use the scriptures. That is why it appears to be futile to discuss that passage where some are told "I never knew you". I find you are quite capable of holding on to your interpretation with indifference to my quite different interpretation.

As I recall your interpretation of the Matt 7 verse doesn't suggest much different then I read it other than the many believers who get rejected get rejected because they are hypocrites or something. Sadly, we're all hypocrites at some point in our lives. If so, then how do we escape the notion that God ignores us all? I thought, in context, this was about people who metaphorically built their houses on sand--the foolish who didn't set a good foundation for their beliefs (whatever that might mean).

[dastardly stem]

DS,

Thanks for taking the time to transcribe those comments. I don’t have anything to add because your post is tidy; I just appreciate the high effort.

I mean. I can add a comment because otherwise I’m low-effort posting. I suppose this is why believers eventually bounce on their faith because it’s nonsensical and irrational, OR as we’ve seen over and over again the believer just invents their own non-biblical god. ‘My god is very sweet and just loves people’ doesn’t fly when that ****er smokes people left and right, biblically speaking of course. Would a believer allow a repentant rapist and murderer in their home? Maybe, but they’d be foolish to do so.

- Doc

When Jim Bennet was asked if he would let his 15 year old daughter work in the Smith home here is what he said.

want to be on the record saying it no absolutely not i i i wouldn't want my 50 year old daughter
7:55:12
anywhere near that and i wouldn't want my 15 year old daughter anywhere near polygamy i mean i look at polygamy and i look at
7:55:19
plural marriage and i am so grateful that i didn't have to go through any
7:55:24
kind of of wrestle with the spirit to try to figure out whether or not i ought to practice it

Jim can't even justify the actions of his prophet yet continues to worship the tenants of the religion.

I want to respect Jim for giving that type of response...but...it goes back to Harris' comments--isn't that just an example of failing to reason honestly? "well yes, that happened...but I believe anyway. I mean GOd wouldn't have done that. So I just accept what I want for my benefit"...or something.

[dastardly stem]

DS,

Thanks for taking the time to transcribe those comments. I don’t have anything to add because your post is tidy; I just appreciate the high effort.

I mean. I can add a comment because otherwise I’m low-effort posting. I suppose this is why believers eventually bounce on their faith because it’s nonsensical and irrational, OR as we’ve seen over and over again the believer just invents their own non-biblical god. ‘My god is very sweet and just loves people’ doesn’t fly when that ****er smokes people left and right, biblically speaking of course.

Yep. It's like God is great, when it suits the situation. If it doesn't suit the situation, God is mysterious. The scriptures are inspired by God in some sense, but in another sense as it suits me, the scriptures are just ideas of people who lived a long time ago without the resources of St Thomas Aquinas and co telling us how to really think about what God should be like.

Would a believer allow a repentant rapist and murderer in their home? Maybe, but they’d be foolish to do so.

- Doc

Or allow their kid into a rapists home for sleepovers? Oh wait...didn't we just have a thread about that?

[Rivendale]

When Jim Bennet was asked if he would let his 15 year old daughter work in the Smith home here is what he said.



Jim can't even justify the actions of his prophet yet continues to worship the tenants of the religion.

I want to respect Jim for giving that type of response...but...it goes back to Harris' comments--isn't that just an example of failing to reason honestly? "well yes, that happened...but I believe anyway. I mean GOd wouldn't have done that. So I just accept what I want for my benefit"...or something.

Jim was one of the few apologists that will actually engage although in some forums he is not that honest. One of the most profound quotes I have read and watched https://youtu.be/zI_vdDq92O4?t=329 was from Christopher Hitchens. It resonated with my scientific training yet I never summarized it in this way.

“Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years.

Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person.