Does God exist?

[Fish]

And don't just assign me homework to justify your argument - if that book justifies genocide and infantcide, why don't you read it and cite your evidence that God wasn't acting like a sociopathic child.

And please don't just say "well, that was just the way the world worked back then" crap. Genocide wasn't forgivable just because lots of people did it.

[Katiebee]

Just remember, Fish, that most of the Bible contains history, genealogies, and stories. Very little is about what God wants, as opposed to the interests of those in the power structure wanted. The Pauline writings and theology demonstrate that quite adequately. Paul of Tarsus never met Jesus, but interpreted him, much to the opposition of what those who knew him.

[Fish]

So we agree then: a large portion of the book is bullshit. A large portion of the acts ascribed to god are bullshit - I'm not arguing that the god that is not written is an asshole, I'm arguing that God is an asshole if you interpret him exactly as written.

If you want to ignore what is written, then we aren't even having the same discussion. I have no qualms with your conveniently edited god, I only hate the god that is written about in the bible.

Once you ignore all the atrocities, of course he's cool. Yay god.

[MissBarbara]

And don't just assign me homework to justify your argument - if that book justifies genocide and infantcide, why don't you read it and cite your evidence that God wasn't acting like a sociopathic child.

That's twice now you've condemned, or at least brushed aside, a book that you clearly know nothing about.

Scroll back, and you'll see that I cited that book in AGREEING with Freemont's point about the Bible's relative untrustworthiness, that is, "The Bible has been transcribed, edited, updated, translated and reorganized so much that taking ANYTHING in it as "Gospel" (love the irony of that) is ridiculous."

And please don't just say "well, that was just the way the world worked back then" crap. Genocide wasn't forgivable just because lots of people did it.

I neither said nor suggested anything of the sort.

Please respond to what I actually say, and not what you think I think.

I'm arguing that God is an asshole if you interpret him exactly as written.

Again, you're resorting to Biblical literalism. And, again, by doing so, your completely miss the point, which is, to again quote Freemont, "I suggest going for the overall theme of these texts, not specifics."

P.S. By the way, I labelled your criticism "baseless" because you condemn and argue against a book that you've neither read nor clearly know anything about. An opinion based on ignorance is per se "baseless."

[Fish]

So we were arguing the same thing the whole time?

The Christian/Jewish god, as described in the bible, is bullshit.

If you use the exact same tactic of ignoring anything that isn't perfect and holy, then you can make Pol Pot into god.

[Fish]

I think it is important to note that I have nothing against Christians as a group - my favorite person on the planet is a devout Christian - I just read the book several times, and I absolutely loathe the god character. Especially the OT god.

I love Jesus - I don't belive in supernatural bullshit, but he had great things to say. I volunteer with a church almost every Sunday to feed the poor.

[MissBarbara]

So we were arguing the same thing the whole time?

The Christian/Jewish god, as described in the bible, is bullshit.

If you use the exact same tactic of ignoring anything that isn't perfect and holy, then you can make Pol Pot into god.

Not really.

I don't believe that the Bible is bullshit. Or, at least, I don't believe that the Bible is any more "bullshit" than, say "Paradise Lost," or "The Divine Comedy." Or "Aesop's Fables" or "Grimm's Fairy Tales." Or "The Little Prince."

Nor do I believe that God is a "sociopathic child" or "an asshole" or "the ultimate egomaniac."

Plus, I find it more than a little hypocritical to condemn others for cherry-picking parts of the Bible -- including the New Testament -- to prove a point, while you're cherry-picking parts of the Bible to prove your point.

But, other than all of that, we agree.

[Freemont]

Slightly unrelated point..... can any God/Goddess/Godform be anything but a sociopath?

I mean from my point of view as a Pagan our pantheons have done some terrible shit. TERRIBLE. My Patron Goddess is the Morrigan, Chooser of the Dead. She is literally Terrifying... loving and fair but totally without any form of forgiveness at all. All of our Pantheons lack any sense of forgiveness at all.

Why do I mention this? Because I believe that any form of life high enough above us to be deemed a Godform would think so completely differently to us that they would appear horrific. And why? Because they would be seeing things in such a different perspective.

The idea that any form of God/Goddess has to love us is a very modern idea. In many ways it was the idea of a totally loving God that helped to popularise monotheism. Previous to that most religions called on us to EARN the love of the higher powers. (At least in western philosophies, I can't speak for Eastern beliefs because I don't know enough about them)

I would say that anyone disliking the bible should read the apocrypha. The books that did not make the cut would really open your eyes to totally different interpretations. And how the books were chosen is a great farce, Carry On Editing if you will.

Finally remember that modern evidence and historical records all agree that the oldest books contained in the bible were written HUNDREDS of years after the fact.

[Katiebee]

In all, Freemont is correct.

The Gods the men create are modeled after the worst behavior that man displays.

The God of the Old Testement has more in common, in behavior, with the other Gods of the western world than He does with the God of the New Testament.

[Lois]

People create their gods to help make sense of their world.  The world of the Old Testament was very different from ours.  That is why I think their god was so damned awful.

Jesus preached love and forgiveness and set a new bar for everyone.  It's still not perfect, but I am glad that there was a change.

[Fish]

I don't believe that the Bible is bullshit. Or, at least, I don't believe that the Bible is any more "bullshit" than, say "Paradise Lost," or "The Divine Comedy." Or "Aesop's Fables" or "Grimm's Fairy Tales." Or "The Little Prince."

By bullshit, I meant fictional, so yes, we agree, as you compare it to other works of fiction. At least some of those other works are more enjoyable, at least to me, so I think it is still a mediocre work my mostly mediocre authors.

Nor do I believe that God is a "sociopathic child" or "an asshole" or "the ultimate egomaniac."

My argument that god is a sociopath (or at least my first salvo for the argument): take the flood - that is the equivalent of a person who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot abide the behavior of cats building a MASSIVE breeding operation for cats. Then, after thousands of cats become billions of cats, he decides he doesn't want them acting like cats... so he saves one very small family, and he drowns every last remaining cat. And he knew he would do it from the start - it was all in the plan from the beginning.

I think in an effort to keep this succinct, I'll also let this be my argument for 'asshole', though there are dozens more possibilities.

Egomaniac (ultimate): God literally commands that every single person on the whole planet worship him once a week for an entire day. On top of this, there is the standard that his followers give thanks for the privilege of allowing them a chance to work and toil for their food. On top of this, they are to read a story of his actions... and praise him.

 

Could there be anything more conceited? No, I think that's the summit of ego.

Plus, I find it more than a little hypocritical to condemn others for cherry-picking parts of the Bible -- including the New Testament -- to prove a point, while you're cherry-picking parts of the Bible to prove your point.

I cited specific evidence, and I didn't ignore evidence to the contrary. Several people in this argument have called for me to look at the theme rather than the specific content. I read god as the main character (though certainly not the protagonist) of the story, so I read his actions to be the theme. Perhaps a different approach? One that ignores one of the central characters? Let's give it a try.

The story then becomes deluded people (as god is gone, so they are replying to, listening to, and following no one) coming to realize that the world around them makes no sense, rules are arbitrary and misguided, and chaos reigns supreme. Then, after quite a long time with only a few passably compassionate characters, we get a person whom (while still deluded) speaks many sane and reasonable truths, and some small points I think are poorly thought out, but mostly reasonable things. Then people kill this person, and well, without god, it sort of breaks down for awhile... then another asshole writing letters to well-intentioned people... then death for all.

This is a FAR better story in my eyes, but it had nothing to do with my original argument - that god (as a character in a book) hates fags. The other original argument was that there is no god, and the bible is an obvious work of fiction, which you seem to agree, unless you'd like to clarify.

[MissBarbara]

Nor do I believe that God is a "sociopathic child" or "an asshole" or "the ultimate egomaniac."

My argument that god is a sociopath (or at least my first salvo for the argument): take the flood - that is the equivalent of a person who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot abide the behavior of cats building a MASSIVE breeding operation for cats. Then, after thousands of cats become billions of cats, he decides he doesn't want them acting like cats... so he saves one very small family, and he drowns every last remaining cat. And he knew he would do it from the start - it was all in the plan from the beginning.

I think in an effort to keep this succinct, I'll also let this be my argument for 'asshole', though there are dozens more possibilities.

Egomaniac (ultimate): God literally commands that every single person on the whole planet worship him once a week for an entire day. On top of this, there is the standard that his followers give thanks for the privilege of allowing them a chance to work and toil for their food. On top of this, they are to read a story of his actions... and praise him.

Could there be anything more conceited? No, I think that's the summit of ego.

Once again, you are reading the Bible literally, and as a 21st century American. In other words, you are offering your own personal views and opinions, streamed through the prism of your personal biases and viewpoints, and viewing the text devoid of any context.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, since it makes the stuff of a good discussion.

Plus, I find it more than a little hypocritical to condemn others for cherry-picking parts of the Bible -- including the New Testament -- to prove a point, while you're cherry-picking parts of the Bible to prove your point.

I cited specific evidence, and I didn't ignore evidence to the contrary. Several people in this argument have called for me to look at the theme rather than the specific content. I read god as the main character (though certainly not the protagonist) of the story, so I read his actions to be the theme. Perhaps a different approach? One that ignores one of the central characters? Let's give it a try.

The story then becomes deluded people (as god is gone, so they are replying to, listening to, and following no one) coming to realize that the world around them makes no sense, rules are arbitrary and misguided, and chaos reigns supreme. Then, after quite a long time with only a few passably compassionate characters, we get a person whom (while still deluded) speaks many sane and reasonable truths, and some small points I think are poorly thought out, but mostly reasonable things. Then people kill this person, and well, without god, it sort of breaks down for awhile... then another asshole writing letters to well-intentioned people... then death for all.

Well, since you offered your personal interpretation of the overall theme of the Bible, I'll offer mine:

God created the world -- and I use the word "created" in the loosest possible sense of the word, a sense that sees not the slightest contradiction with things like the Big Bang Theory, Evolution, etc. God "created" humans, and gave them perfectly free will. God created an earthly paradise, which humans then abandoned by exercising their free will. But God did not destroy the world, or the humans, as a result, but rather continued to provide for them.

And this dialectic runs through the entire course of the Bible, even into the New Testament: God creates, human exercise their free will, yet God forgives them and continues to view them as his own. And this theme is seen again, and again, and again, from the first humans' disobedience -- which God forgave -- to the first postlapsarian offense (Cain murders Abel out of jealousy), and over, and over, and over again. Culminating in God sending his Only Son and, well, you know the rest of the story.

This is a FAR better story in my eyes, but it had nothing to do with my original argument - that god (as a character in a book) hates fags. The other original argument was that there is no god, and the bible is an obvious work of fiction, which you seem to agree, unless you'd like to clarify.

I'm glad you swung this sub-discussion back to the beginning, since this has EVERYTHING to do with your original argument.

The discussion went like this:

Fish: "I challenge anyone to find me something in the bible against lesbians. Got only hates gay men, he's fine with the ladies."

Barbara: "I challenge you to find something in the Bible that says that God hates gay men."

Fish (quite predictably): Leviticus.

Actually, you missed more specific and germane condemnations of homosexuality, like:

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Leviticus, 18:22)

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness...And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet." (Romans, 1: 18-32)

And, to your point that God condemns gay men but not lesbians, there's this line from Romans:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."

Seems pretty clear to me that, using your reasoning (and literal reading), God hates both fags and dykes.

However, none of this says (or means) that "God hates fags (or dykes)." The Bible, and every major religion, most notably the three major monotheistic religions, plus most non-monotheistic religions, assert a list of prescriptions and proscriptions, "dos" and "don'ts," if you will. You selectively interpret that if a human violates any of God's proscriptions, then God hates that person. And, if you're going to interpret violation with hatred, then since every human being who has ever lived has violated at least one of God's commands and, therefore, God hates everyone.

If you intend to use that logic, then you have to be consistent and extend it to every belief system, religious and secular; for every belief system, religious or secular, carries with it prescriptions and proscriptions, from religions, to things like Ethical Humanism and Political Correctness, and even to civil laws.

Yesterday I jaywalked while crossing the street, yet I'm pretty sure that New York City doesn't hate me.

[Katiebee]

Yesterday I jaywalked while crossing the street, yet I'm pretty sure that New York City doesn't hate me.

Miss B, I'm certain the taxi drivers have a certain animosity towards jaywalkers.

 

[MissBarbara]

Yesterday I jaywalked while crossing the street, yet I'm pretty sure that New York City doesn't hate me.

Miss B, I'm certain the taxi drivers have a certain animosity towards jaywalkers.

 

Excellent point!

[Fish]

So... let me try to wrap my head around this -

You're arguing that God orders his faithful to bludgeon people to death, and he DOESN'T hate them? Wow, your god interpretation is even more sociopathic then mine. Ouch.

And as far as forgiveness, why should he have to forgive anything if we are creations of an omnipotent being? He created us knowing exactly what we would do - he should forgive himself and stop talking about hell.

And finally, I wasn't ignoring the nt, I was focusing on the parts of the bible where God speaks the most. I could find plenty of evidence that God's friends are docks (Paul) in the nt. God's plan is a dick is one (Revelations), but God himself seems to change his mind on a lot of things - like direct intervention. Kind of odd for an omnipotent being.

And one more time: I have no way of arguing about a modern interpretation of the bible, I can only address what is written, not an attempt to reconcile that sociopath with sanity by ignoring the horrible things his own book says he did. I have no qualms with your idealized reading, but I wasn't trying to address the modern disregard for the text itself.

And I'll take a look at your god hates dykes quote in context on Sunday after I volunteer at church.

[Freemont]

Just one point I want to pick up on.

Let us say, for argument, that one single being created EVERYTHING that exists, would it still be an asshole to expect and demand worship?
I'm not being funny but if I make dinner for someone I expect a thank you. If I created everything you better get on your knees and worship.

Now for me one single fact of Monotheism killed my interest in it. If your true love does not believe then they are damned for all time to suffering. You go to heaven and they are...fucked. That broke things for me. If ANY god damns my love for not worshiping they better damn me to.

Now the bible features everything from murder, to genocide to incest by "godly" ppl. And why is this okay? Because of the time and culture it was written by/in. To read any ancient text without knowing about the time and culture it came from is folly.

Also consider it as an idea at war. The religion of the time was vying with many polytheistic religions. Thus many things common in polytheistic societies were deemed to be "evil". The Roman and Greek Societies, not to mention the Norse and Druidic Celts/Picts, all had no concept of Gay or Straight. They had no cultural or religious prohibitions regarding who slept with who. They used Idols to represent their gods. They practised magic and herb-lore. Some were even Matriarchal in parts. So you want your religion to win out over theirs so you outlaw all those things that they do. No same sex coupling. No Idol Worship. No witches or wise-men. No herbalists offering cures. Men only in charge of church and home.

In short the things you mention, especially the no gays thing, is more then likely a cultural bias ATTRIBUTED to "Yahweh" rather then one that he actually was professed to have.

Even taken as fiction in whole or part that point stands. Hell half of Chauserian Study is understanding the society at the time, a quarter is learning the damnable middle-english with only a quarter being the actual text.

[Elizabeth]

Most of the Bible does not stand the test of time, it's not really fair to compare the times (ancient) with the times (Present).
Just my thoughts.

Love,
Liz

[Fish]

One, hopefully last time: I'm not evaluating the god character based on what was accepted at the time, or whose religion was worse, or any such standard - I don't give a fuck if a lot of mediocre or awful people thought it was okay at the time. Genocide used to be rather common - that does not mean it was okay.

I am arguing that the god CHARACTER is evil AS HE IS WRITTEN. The moment you ignore some section or forgi c e some section as a cultural relic you excuse god to be an asshole in the context of this work of fiction.

[MissBarbara]

So... let me try to wrap my head around this -

You're arguing that God orders his faithful to bludgeon people to death, and he DOESN'T hate them? Wow, your god interpretation is even more sociopathic then mine. Ouch.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort, nor have I argued anything of the sort.

What I'm arguing is that God "created" humans with free will.

All parents has a child that consciously disobeys them, and does things that they know they shouldn't do, but they do it anyway.

Do those parents then hate their child? And if they don't hate their child for that, then would you similarly label those parents "sociopathic"?

Alexander Pope was correct: "To err is human, to forgive divine." Ponder that.

And as far as forgiveness, why should he have to forgive anything if we are creations of an omnipotent being? He created us knowing exactly what we would do - he should forgive himself and stop talking about hell.

Do you understand the concept of free will? God's omnipotence and omniscience and humans' fallibility have nothing to do with each other.

But you're right: "He created us knowing exactly what we would do." He knew that we would use our free will to obey him or not, worship him or not, follow his commands or not, love him or not, recognize his existence or not.

And finally, I wasn't ignoring the nt, I was focusing on the parts of the bible where God speaks the most. I could find plenty of evidence that God's friends are docks (Paul) in the nt. God's plan is a dick is one (Revelations), but God himself seems to change his mind on a lot of things - like direct intervention. Kind of odd for an omnipotent being.

I suspect it's a spell check issue (or I'm being dense), but I'm not sure what you're saying here. "God's friends are docks"? "God's plan is a dick one"?

And one more time: I have no way of arguing about a modern interpretation of the bible, I can only address what is written, not an attempt to reconcile that sociopath with sanity by ignoring the horrible things his own book says he did. I have no qualms with your idealized reading, but I wasn't trying to address the modern disregard for the text itself.

Nor have I argued about modern interpretation of the Bible. That's an area that, frankly, I know fairly little about.

I am arguing that taking a book literally that was never intended to be taken literally is entirely missing the point. I would agree -- hypothetically -- that reading the Bible with strict literalism, devoid of any context, refusing to discover any deeper meanings of general themes would reveal a God who is a sociopath. And therein lies the problem.

The Bible isn't history, it isn't reportage, and it isn't a strict chronicle of events that actually took place.

And Dante (the character) didn't really enter the gates of hell, meet Virgil, and make his way downward, meeting scores of persons, real life or fictional (including many whom Dante, the writer, had personal beefs with).

And I'll take a look at your god hates dykes quote in context on Sunday after I volunteer at church.

"God's hates dykes" is your interpretation, not mine.

But I'll pray for you when I'm attending Mass on Sunday.

[Fish]

So... let me try to wrap my head around this -

You're arguing that God orders his faithful to bludgeon people to death, and he DOESN'T hate them? Wow, your god interpretation is even more sociopathic then mine. Ouch.

I'm arguing nothing of the sort, nor have I argued anything of the sort.

You sure about that? I perhaps read this wrong then:

However, none of this says (or means) that "God hates fags (or dykes)."

That was yours. Clarify?

What I'm arguing is that God "created" humans with free will.

All parents has a child that consciously disobeys them, and does things that they know they shouldn't do, but they do it anyway.

Do those parents then hate their child? And if they don't hate their child for that, then would you similarly label those parents "sociopathic"?

Alexander Pope was correct: "To err is human, to forgive divine." Ponder that.
[/b]

I would label the parents as sociopathic if they ordered their other children to beat them to death. Yup, that would indeed be sociopathic.

Do you understand the concept of free will? God's omnipotence and omniscience and humans' fallibility have nothing to do with each other.

How on earth could they have anything less than everything to do with each other? He created Satan without free will - and he knew what would happen. He created humans with free will, but is it really free will if one is doomed to hell? God supposedly knows who is going to hell, and he is responsible for their creation. Hence, our fallibility is entirely a product of his omnipotence.

But you're right: "He created us knowing exactly what we would do." He knew that we would use our free will to obey him or not, worship him or not, follow his commands or not, love him or not, recognize his existence or not.
[/b]

Yeah, we're on the same page there. How free is that? We're free to do exactly as programmed.

I suspect it's a spell check issue (or I'm being dense), but I'm not sure what you're saying here. "God's friends are docks"? "God's plan is a dick one"?

Yes, I had to write from a phone, and quite a few of my posts have had issues like that. That's why it takes me so long to reply - I want to be able to quote, and I can't do that from my phone.

Nor have I argued about modern interpretation of the Bible. That's an area that, frankly, I know fairly little about.

I am arguing that taking a book literally that was never intended to be taken literally is entirely missing the point.

Never? It was never intended to be taken literally? So god was just joking about beating gay men to death? Not a single one of his followers ever did that? Nobody was expected to take that literally? God sure has an odd sense of humor, because I'm certain a lot of misguided followers didn't get the joke.

I would agree -- hypothetically -- that reading the Bible with strict literalism, devoid of any context, refusing to discover any deeper meanings of general themes would reveal a God who is a sociopath. And therein lies the problem.

I think we just see the theme differently - I don't brush aside the orders of the main character as irrelevant or sarcastic, and you see some reason that this doesn't matter. Many Christians like to disregard some of the more despicable points in the bible, especially the ot. You are not alone, I just disagree.

The Bible isn't history, it isn't reportage, and it isn't a strict chronicle of events that actually took place.

I actually see more value in the bible if you read it as a history book - flawed as hell, but there are clearly moments of revealing truth. Most historical records of the time are inaccurate, so it is par for the course, and I value it highly for the history. My own opinion.

And Dante (the character) didn't really enter the gates of hell, meet Virgil, and make his way downward, meeting scores of persons, real life or fictional (including many whom Dante, the writer, had personal beefs with).

Dante wrote a work of fiction, and did not try to convince anyone otherwise.

And I'll take a look at your god hates dykes quote in context on Sunday after I volunteer at church.

"God's hates dykes" is your interpretation, not mine.

But I'll pray for you when I'm attending Mass on Sunday.
[/quote]

Deal - I'l volunteer to help the mentally ill homeless in my area get medication and housing, and you pray. I'll feed the homeless, and you just go ahead and light a candle. I'll donate clothes and tutor the children of the homeless in my neighborhood, and you talk to a priest. I'll pick up trash including used hypodermic needles, and you go to confession for your 'sins' and tithe.

I suspect you do many acts of charity, as do many other Christians, but you also spend a lot of time - and perhaps money - on the proliferation of a collection of lies.