Excuses, excuses

JJ50 said:

If the Biblical god character exists and is as evil as that book depicts as being , why do some believers make excuses for its disgusting behaviour?

Click to expand...

They're trying to convince themselves because of the cognitive dissonance it causes them.

sealchan said:

Because they are afraid to acknowledge that God's creation has much in it to complain about, to suffer from and to fear that cannot be traced back to the actions of humanity. Nature is a force that is at best amoral and God is ultimately responsible for Nature. To imagine that God should expect a certain level of morality from us individually and not be held accountable for the "evil" inherent in His creation is too incongruous to accept.

This sort of God reality was addressed in a big way in the New Testament in creating an intermediary, Jesus, that suffered as a human but was also understood to be or be of God. In many ways, the human incarnation of a God is an effort in the mythic imagination of a people to understand why one should act morally in an amoral reality. This natural desire of humanity to be moral when all the rest of creation (or the Cosmos) seems not to be particularly interested in that human morality, is a mystery and requires a response in our individual psychologies whether we are believers or non-believers. It is a universal psychological paradox. The Bible, through its literary and historical development, attempts one answer. Those who read the Bible and those who preach the Bible do not necessarily fully understand the underlying psychological reason for why the authors of the Bible told the stories and describe the God that the Bible tells and describes.

Click to expand...

The OP topic was not that the nature of nature is to have
lighting, earthquakes, and disease. It is about theos
making excuses for atrrocities.

"God" as portrayed in the "bible" is a psycho
monster. HE directly and personally is the author of
hideous atrocities. Or sends a minion to do his dirty
work.

Theos make all manner of excuses for "god"
because they are afraid to acknowledge that.

Windwalker said:

They're trying to convince themselves because of the cognitive dissonance it causes them.

Click to expand...

Sheesh. Should have said that at the first, then
the rest of us wont have to try to answer.

JJ50 said:

There is very little that is historical in the Bible, and also very little that is credible.

Click to expand...

I agree. By historical I meant historical, literary development.

viole said:

So, do you believe it is morally right to take life if you have given it?

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

Interesting question.

Two responses...one is that aside from the error of literalism, it is important to recognize that many modern Christians look to the Bible for prescriptions of behavior whereas they should be looking at the Bible as descriptions of behavior. The Bible itself encourages this bias but it is not the exclusive or even best way to get use from what is written. Taken to an extreme this presents the Bible promoter with the temptation to whitewash the characters therein.

Second...your question is addressed in Job where the answer is a probably "yes". In science fiction we have seen this issue addressed quite a bit. The story of Data is Star Trek: The Next Generation is what comes to mind first. One can see that when humanity creates AI there is a mystery surrounding whether AI can earn the right of sentience. In Datas case I believe that that assertion is taken as a matter of course. But in bringing in Lore and Datas creator we can peak back a bit about some of the moral issues raised should we differentiate an evil vs good AI. Also, the opportunity to shut down Data and to alter his components.

So if we imagine a God who has created a universe with sentience we might imagine through analogy to our relationship to AI that God might possibly be justified in destroying that sentience. The assumption is that God has access to information critical to that decision as a moral decision that we do not. We cannot create a universe even so our ignorance makes Gods potential knowledge all the more credible. I believe Job makes this sort of point.

Now IMO Gods apparent amorality, which is evident on our level of awareness, does not in any way grant us a ticket to ignore our sense of morality. It is a hard sell for the Bible to convince its audience that God is Good. The authors attempt this very thing by doing so in the face of the ambiguity of Gods own moral character. Whether they succeed or not is a matter of personal understanding inspire of what authoritarian Christians may say.

Then if you substitute the Universe for God you realize this problem is universal. Whether we are children of the stars or of a Good creator God, we still have the fundamental problem of this compulsion to act morally in a extra-human reality that is ambivalent to a significant extent about whether we act morally or not.

The best way to read the Bible is with this universal issue in mind. We may have to set aside the attitudes that many who promote the Bible bring to the table.

Audie said:

The OP topic was not that the nature of nature is to have
lighting, earthquakes, and disease. It is about theos
making excuses for atrrocities.

"God" as portrayed in the "bible" is a psycho
monster. HE directly and personally is the author of
hideous atrocities. Or sends a minion to do his dirty
work.

Theos make all manner of excuses for "god"
because they are afraid to acknowledge that.

Click to expand...

I would find it remiss to criticize those that want to cover up a fear if it meant that it would mean pretending like the fear is not grounded in a reality that is driving that fear response.

Even the persecution of of a small nation by a much more overwhelming powerful one is relevant. The Bible tries to assign blame, perhaps, to the conduct of individuals beliefs or ruler's integrity. God is seen as promoting enemies against His own people. The reality is that God's believers suffered at the hands of nature AND at the hands of other humans. And God responded apparently in kind justifying horrific acts in His name for the sake of His people. But the courage of the Jewish Testament is to not back down fully from God's own participation in that suffering. The Bible bears witness to this cruelty, God endorsed, but many misguided Christians seek to ignore this dimension of the Word.

I think that to narrowly focus on God being portrayed as evil without giving due credit to the author's of the Bible for showing this so well is to appear to want only to attack individuals in spite of being able to see that those individual's misunderstand their own faith.

Which is a better argument to make, that some people are just plain ignorant, or that some people are misguided and a small correction can be seen to bring us all back onto the same page? If you acknowledge the common universal issue of the cruelty we are surrounded with in our lives and then help to show that the Bible reflects that universal experience in a way that whitewashing or ignoring doesn't help, then both sides get some respect.

I would recommend we all choose the second option.

sealchan said:

I would find it remiss to criticize those that want to cover up a fear if it meant that it would mean pretending like the fear is not grounded in a reality that is driving that fear response.

Even the persecution of of a small nation by a much more overwhelming powerful one is relevant. The Bible tries to assign blame, perhaps, to the conduct of individuals beliefs or ruler's integrity. God is seen as promoting enemies against His own people. The reality is that God's believers suffered at the hands of nature AND at the hands of other humans. And God responded apparently in kind justifying horrific acts in His name for the sake of His people. But the courage of the Jewish Testament is to not back down fully from God's own participation in that suffering. The Bible bears witness to this cruelty, God endorsed, but many misguided Christians seek to ignore this dimension of the Word.

I think that to narrowly focus on God being portrayed as evil without giving due credit to the author's of the Bible for showing this so well is to appear to want only to attack individuals in spite of being able to see that those individual's misunderstand their own faith.

Which is a better argument to make, that some people are just plain ignorant, or that some people are misguided and a small correction can be seen to bring us all back onto the same page? You acknowledge the common universal issue and then help to show that the Bible reflects that universal experience in a way that whitewashing or ignoring doesn't help.

I would recommend we all choose the second option.

Click to expand...

Are you somehow not acknowledging that the god
in the bible is portrayed as a psycho monster?

Or are you?

sealchan said:

Interesting question.

Two responses...one is that aside from the error of literalism, it is important to recognize that many modern Christians look to the Bible for prescriptions of behavior whereas they should be looking at the Bible as descriptions of behavior. The Bible itself encourages this bias but it is not the exclusive or even best way to get use from what is written. Taken to an extreme this presents the Bible promoter with the temptation to whitewash the characters therein.

Second...your question is addressed in Job where the answer is a probably "yes". In science fiction we have seen this issue addressed quite a bit. The story of Data is Star Trek: The Next Generation is what comes to mind first. One can see that when humanity creates AI there is a mystery surrounding whether AI can earn the right of sentience. In Datas case I believe that that assertion is taken as a matter of course. But in bringing in Lore and Datas creator we can peak back a bit about some of the moral issues raised should we differentiate an evil vs good AI. Also, the opportunity to shut down Data and to alter his components.

So if we imagine a God who has created a universe with sentience we might imagine through analogy to our relationship to AI that God might possibly be justified in destroying that sentience. The assumption is that God has access to information critical to that decision as a moral decision that we do not. We cannot create a universe even so our ignorance makes Gods potential knowledge all the more credible. I believe Job makes this sort of point.

Now IMO Gods apparent amorality, which is evident on our level of awareness, does not in any way grant us a ticket to ignore our sense of morality. It is a hard sell for the Bible to convince its audience that God is Good. The authors attempt this very thing by doing so in the face of the ambiguity of Gods own moral character. Whether they succeed or not is a matter of personal understanding inspire of what authoritarian Christians may say.

Then if you substitute the Universe for God you realize this problem is universal. Whether we are children of the stars or of a Good creator God, we still have the fundamental problem of this compulsion to act morally in a extra-human reality that is ambivalent to a significant extent about whether we act morally or not.

The best way to read the Bible is with this universal issue in mind. We may have to set aside the attitudes that many who promote the Bible bring to the table.

Click to expand...

So, I am not sure. Is it a yes, or a no?

Ciao

- viole

viole said:

So, I am not sure. Is it a yes, or a no?

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

I have the same prob, figuring out what the
actual answer to q is, or if there even is an answer.

Wasp said:

Have you noticed that you describe God as very much human-like, while some consider Him to be beyond our understanding. You seem to put lot of negative characteristics of people onto God as if He was like us.

Click to expand...

Negativity or positivity aside, using words like "him/he", "father" is anthropomorphic. If beyond understanding, those would not be descriptors, unknowable and non-human like would be genderless.

JJ50 said:

If the Biblical god character exists and is as evil as that book depicts as being , why do some believers make excuses for its disgusting behaviour?

Click to expand...

Can you list some SPECIFIC ways (with references) in which God is depicted as being evil?

JJ50 said:

We have no idea what god is like if it exists, which is unlikely. The Biblical god has all the worst of human characteristics, and is more than like a human creation.

Click to expand...

In some places God is highly anrthromorphosed. In others, not so much. It’s not an all-or-nothing deal. And I think we have a pretty good picture of what God is like. the human qualities aren’t all (or even mostly) bad.

JJ50 said:

If the Biblical god character exists and is as evil as that book depicts as being , why do some believers make excuses for its disgusting behaviour?

Click to expand...

I have read the Bible many times and have yet to see the God depicted therein do anything "evil" nor does it describe that Being exhibiting any "disgusting behaviour".

Do you have any specific examples that you'd like to discuss or did you keep your question vague because you knew that getting into specifics would dismantle your argument?

Audie said:

All you have to do is read the book, the horror show is
right there, all of it the word of god.*
Trying to turn that around and blame the person who
reads what it says is just weird.

*that is what some people claim anyway.

Click to expand...

Then that’s the fault of the reader and the way in which s/he chooses to interpret what’s read.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Seeing as how man's way seems to be steering away from practices like slavery and persecution of homosexuals, while god's way is fine with both, I'ld say that clearly man's way is morally and ethically superior.

Click to expand...

In what way is God “fine” with either persecution of homosexuals, or with slavery as we define it today?

JJ50 said:

Thanks Audie. I wonder how many of those who make excuses for the unpleasant god character have actually read the Bible from cover to cover as I have done many time in my 69 years on this planet.

Click to expand...

In what way is God ever depicted as “unpleasant?” I suggest that if you see God as “unpleasant,” you do a little research into the culture of the time, rather than reading through a highly-biased lens.

Audie said:

I read it cover to cover, once. That was plenty.
Must have been, for lo, I have found that it is
not at all unusual for me to know the bible
better than our nominal christians do.

The way that the Christians ratinalize the atrocities
committed by their "god" (goddies, take note
that we are referring to a character in a novel,)
is a bit of a marvel.

One that particularly gets me is that in the story,
"god" directed that his people take a city, and
kill everyone.

The horrors and terror of a siege, are a thing in
itself to consider. Then the walls are breached.

The screams and shouts, limbs severed, blood
sprayed about. Flames, death.

Here is a 13 yr old girl, huddling in terror with her
mother and sisters. Her father went out to fight,
he is dead.

Adrenaline charged, blood spattered warriors break
in! They seize the mother, kill her with a sword.
The girls are grabbed for inspection, their clothes
pulled off and their legs spread. Is there a hymen
present?

A sister whose was accidentally broken is murdered
on the spot.

Our 13 yr old is bound and carried off.

Hey, god said its ok, in fact, quite virtuous and godly.

Perhaps our apologist would like to say how
wonderful it was.

Click to expand...

What was the city? Who lived in that city? What did the residents do to **** off God? Most importantly, how does the story reflect the writers’ ideas of justice in that particular culture?

metis said:

Right near me right now is my "Oxford Desk Dictionary", and I do use it, but I don't consider it to be inerrant or even "divinely inspired"

Click to expand...

Which is kind of interesting as an example, because in the case of this dictionary, if you reason that a certain word is spelled a certain way and then you see that this dictionary disagrees with you.... You'll conclude that your reasoning is wrong and go by what the book states instead.

So the exact opposite of what you do with your bible, as per your own acknolwedgement....

So what's that about?

Even if there were to be no deity whatsoever, and maybe there's not for all I know, contemplating what's moral and what's not is important to me

Click to expand...

And clearly, this moral reasoning and contemplation that you do, you do using tools not present in your bible.
Because if you read in your bible that mosaic law considers nothing wrong with the practice of slavery, your reasoning tells you this is not correct, because YOU consider it immoral.

So obviously, by necessity, your tools for moral evaluation, your moral compass, HAS TO come from elsewhere. If it came from the bible, you'ld have no basis to call slavery immoral. And you would, in fact, consider it moral. But you don't, do you?

Here we are again: bible says X is moral, your reasoning says X is immoral => you conclude X is immoral and the bible is wrong.

Obviously, not only you don't need to bible for moral guidance... you actively use something else instead. And you use that something else to evaluate morals exhibited in biblical stories.

And most of my guidance along this line has come from what my religious affiliations and what their followers have taught me as some of them so often have served as examples of just how important living a life of compassion really is.

Click to expand...

I'll just flat out state it:
There is no good deed that could only be done out of religious motivations.
There are MANY bad deeds that could only be done out of religious motivations.

I'm an atheist and I think the bible (along with the quran and other scriptures) is an immoral, unethical, brutal, primitive, barbarian piece of garbage. I don't need it, I don't want it, I don't invoke it.

And I think altruism, empathy, compassion, solidarity,... all those are good values that we all should uphold. And I come to that reasoned conclusion on purely secular means. No gods, religions or scriptures required. At all.


IN FACT.... in MANY occasions, these religions / scripture are actually OBSTACLES in such reasoning.
Try and base your compassion and treatment of others on the bible and then try and use "biblical reasoning" to stand up for the rights and freedom of homosexuals, for example.

You can't do it. Because pretty much the only thing this book says about gays, is that you should kill them.

But that journey is personal, thus I don't try to convert anyone to Catholicism nor Christianity as a whole. I have far more in common with secular humanists who also try and live out of compassion for all rather than some fellow Catholics who are more self-centered than other-centered. However, not out of any false modesty, I do have my faults-- just ask my wife. On second thought, don't ask her. We've been married for 52 years, and I'm still a "work in process" according to her.

Anyhow, for better or worse, that's my approach.

Click to expand...

Ow, I totally get it. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your approach and I'm not trying to diss it or you or anything.

I'm just pointing out what I consider actually quite obvious.

From what you tell me, it seems that you have no use for your bible at all. You read it out of habbit or cultural / emotional bondage or something. That's fine off course.

But still, from my perspective: this books seems completely useless in your life. You might as well throw it away and it doesn't seem as if you'll miss it in practical terms.

JJ50 said:

I am sure they will come up with more excuses.

Click to expand...

Or is it YOU all who are making excuses for not having done your due diligence in exegesis?

JesusKnowsYou said:

I have read the Bible many times and have yet to see the God depicted therein do anything "evil" nor does it describe that Being exhibiting any "disgusting behaviour".

Do you have any specific examples that you'd like to discuss or did you keep your question vague because you knew that getting into specifics would dismantle your argument?

Click to expand...

Skipped right over the part where he "sent a flood" and
killed all the baby koala bears, huh?

MISSED the part where he send a minion-angle to kill
all those children in Egypt.

Read it again.

Or maybe you dont find anything to be "evil"
if the book sez "god" did it.