A New and Improved God

[Jagella]

Christians are fond of saying that their God is perfect, and Saint Anselm in particular in his ontological argument for God said that God is the greatest being we can think of. I disagree. The Bible God is far from perfect, and I can easily think of a new and improved God--a kinder and gentler deity. For starters, here's a quick list of ways that God could be made better:

• Make God a beautiful female so women get a fair shake, and men have a God they want to love.
• God should love and treat well all people whether they believe in her or love her or not.
• If God wants to be loved, then she should earn our love rather than demand it like a jealous despot.
• God should grant us heaven right here and now rather than make us wait not knowing if we'll ever get there!
• God should make sure her will is clear to all of us revealing that will to each of us as individuals.

I could go on, but that's enough for now. Obviously, Christians should realize that if this God is an improvement over their God, then their God cannot be perfect. To defend the faith, Christians need to argue for why their God is better than this God. What's wrong with a female God who treats women equally to men? Why object to a God who not only loves and saves Christians but loves and saves everybody? Why not prefer a God you love because she's lovable rather than have your God demand love on pain of severe punishment if you don't love him? Why in the world would you want to suffer now rather than end your suffering right away or never suffer at all? Finally, why fight with other believers over a confusing Bible written by men who could be deceivers? Wouldn't a God who speaks to you clearly be better?

 

[F1fan]

I think a wholesale facelift would be difficult because it would essentially be admitting God is an illusion. There has always been slow and subtle changes over time that the average believer won't really notice.

With the massive change in God from the Old to New Testaments there was a huge distraction with the selling point of you getting salvation and ever lasting life. So believers will take the new God as a change in their own status as delivered from hell.

 

[Jagella]

I think a wholesale facelift would be difficult because it would essentially be admitting God is an illusion. There has always been slow and subtle changes over time that the average believer won't really notice.

Yes, saying the God I described in the OP is an improvement over the current supposed God would be tantamount to admitting that the current God has his warts. But Christians must take the current God warts and all because a wart-less God obviously doesn't exist. Of course, they will dodge the obvious questions I posted asking them why they would want a God who allows suffering. To answer them would have them either admitting that their God is a bungler or that they prefer suffering.

With the massive change in God from the Old to New Testaments there was a huge distraction with the selling point of you getting salvation and ever lasting life. So believers will take the new God as a change in their own status as delivered from hell.

That's an interesting point I haven't thought much about. Yes, I think the first Christians made up what they thought was a new and improved God. Most Jews didn't buy it, of course. Evidently new Gods don't sell well to those who already own one.

 

[osgart]

I think they would have to give up on God's omniscience to maintain God's love and benevolence.

It was against the God of the Bible's will that humanity rebelled against God's justice therefore making themselves adversarial to God. God, we are told, didn't will that anyone violate God's justice. God wanted peace only, but every time after the rebellion, God had to respond to mankind's wickedness by destroying those that made enemy of God.

What do you think the Bible God's justice is?

I can't justify killing babies, or children with terminal illnesses by my own sense. Apparently God knows all souls very well, and can give and take life as God sees fit, but the life God takes makes absolutely no sense to the rational mind. It's almost as if the only justification given believers rely on is that God said it, God commanded it, therefore we shouldn't question it and just accept it's the truth being done. I find that woefully inadequate.

In my mind I imagined a more explanatory God, that left nothing unexplained that God did. Clearly the Bible doesn't do that. Instead God's attitude is who are we to question God.

It reminds me of a Star Trek movie where a God was perceived to exist, and he ended up being a tyrant who only wanted his way without question.

God never explains God's actions in most cases. Am I wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, saying the God I described in the OP is an improvement over the current supposed God would be tantamount to admitting that the current God has his warts. But Christians must take the current God warts and all because a wart-less God obviously doesn't exist. Of course, they will dodge the obvious questions I posted asking them why they would want a God who allows suffering. To answer them would have them either admitting that their God is a bungler or that they prefer suffering.

I think Christians know what they are married to, much the same way as Melania Trump knows who she is married to. They all get what they want from a toxic relationship.

That's an interesting point I haven't thought much about. Yes, I think the first Christians made up what they thought was a new and improved God. Most Jews didn't buy it, of course. Evidently new Gods don't sell well to those who already own one.

And even Muslims reject the Jesus-as-savior idea, but think Jesus existed. So we see this ongoing evolution of the Abrahamic religions, and they largely tolerate each other as distant cousins in the broad tolerance of social cooperation, but are ready to dispute them at any moment if it's just them talking.

 

[Rival]

***THREAD MOVED TO GENERAL RELIGIOUS DEBATES***​

 

[1213]

...Make God a beautiful female so women get a fair shake, and men have a God they want to love.

God should love and treat well all people whether they believe in her or love her or not.

If God wants to be loved, then she should earn our love rather than demand it like a jealous despot.

In Bible love God means we keep His commandments. And His commandments are basically in love your neighbor as yourself. If you love your neighbor that way, you show also love to God. I think that is perfect law and I don’t think it is despotic to ask that from us.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

God should grant us heaven right here and now rather than make us wait not knowing if we'll ever get there!

Why? I think it is enough to know that righteous will have eternal life and others don’t. I know God is good, therefore I don’t worry about that. If I don’t get eternal life, it is good.

God should make sure her will is clear to all of us revealing that will to each of us as individuals....

I think Bible God’s will is extremely clear.

 

[Jagella]

I think they would have to give up on God's omniscience to maintain God's love and benevolence.

You have a point there. If God does nothing when tragedy strikes, it could be that he is unaware of the trouble, and that's why he does nothing to help. I think a better defense, though, is that God cannot help those in trouble. Some theists like Rabbi Kushner have arrived at that conclusion. I suppose a weak God is better than no God at all.

It was against the God of the Bible's will that humanity rebelled against God's justice therefore making themselves adversarial to God. God, we are told, didn't will that anyone violate God's justice. God wanted peace only, but every time after the rebellion, God had to respond to mankind's wickedness by destroying those that made enemy of God.

Whose wickedness was worse? Rebellious humans acting on their urges or a presumably perfect God who chose to crush all those who got in his way including children?

What do you think the Bible God's justice is?

That's anybody's guess, but it looks like we just discussed it: He destroys all who displease him.

I can't justify killing babies, or children with terminal illnesses by my own sense. Apparently God knows all souls very well, and can give and take life as God sees fit, but the life God takes makes absolutely no sense to the rational mind. It's almost as if the only justification given believers rely on is that God said it, God commanded it, therefore we shouldn't question it and just accept it's the truth being done. I find that woefully inadequate.

Many apologists argue that God has the right to take life because he presumably gave it. The way I see it, if God gives life, then that life is no longer his to take; it belongs to those he gave it to. In any case, I'm not sure where apologists get that giving life grants the giver the right to kill. I hope they don't think that way regarding their kids!

In my mind I imagined a more explanatory God, that left nothing unexplained that God did. Clearly the Bible doesn't do that. Instead God's attitude is who are we to question God.

He treated poor Job that way.

It reminds me of a Star Trek movie where a God was perceived to exist, and he ended up being a tyrant who only wanted his way without question.

The God of the Bible appears to me to be fashioned after a petty, insecure human ruler who fearing his subjects will rise up against him, destroys their ability to do so.

God never explains God's actions in most cases. Am I wrong?

As I said, he never explained it to Job!

 

[Jagella]

I think Christians know what they are married to, much the same way as Melania Trump knows who she is married to. They all get what they want from a toxic relationship.

That's a good analogy. Christianity can be thought of as a marriage of convenience: Christians put up with God's crap to get what they want.

And even Muslims reject the Jesus-as-savior idea, but think Jesus existed. So we see this ongoing evolution of the Abrahamic religions, and they largely tolerate each other as distant cousins in the broad tolerance of social cooperation, but are ready to dispute them at any moment if it's just them talking.

How do you keep a Muslim from killing a Jew? Toss him a copy of Genesis 12:3!

 

[Jagella]

1213! We meet again. As you may know I got banned from Debating Christianity three times for telling the truth.

In Bible love God means we keep His commandments.

How long has it been since you gave all your possessions to the poor, and did it hurt when you became a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

Then it won't grieve you one bit to give me all the money I ask for.

And His commandments are basically in love your neighbor as yourself. If you love your neighbor that way, you show also love to God. I think that is perfect law and I don’t think it is despotic to ask that from us.

How can you love your neighbor when you believe she's going to hell?

Why? I think it is enough to know that righteous will have eternal life and others don’t. I know God is good, therefore I don’t worry about that. If I don’t get eternal life, it is good.

Wouldn't it be better if everybody got to heaven?

I think Bible God’s will is extremely clear.

Maybe you find God's will to be clear, but everybody who disagrees with you seem to get it wrong. You appear to be one of those very special people that God favors.

 

[F1fan]

Why? I think it is enough to know that righteous will have eternal life and others don’t. I know God is good, therefore I don’t worry about that. If I don’t get eternal life, it is good.

So you are uncertain and not confident you are righteous and will be in heaven? And you are OK with being cast in hell for eternity?

 

[osgart]

You have a point there. If God does nothing when tragedy strikes, it could be that he is unaware of the trouble, and that's why he does nothing to help. I think a better defense, though, is that God cannot help those in trouble. Some theists like Rabbi Kushner have arrived at that conclusion. I suppose a weak God is better than no God at all.



Whose wickedness was worse? Rebellious humans acting on their urges or a presumably perfect God who chose to crush all those who got in his way including children?



That's anybody's guess, but it looks like we just discussed it: He destroys all who displease him.



Many apologists argue that God has the right to take life because he presumably gave it. The way I see it, if God gives life, then that life is no longer his to take; it belongs to those he gave it to. In any case, I'm not sure where apologists get that giving life grants the giver the right to kill. I hope they don't think that way regarding their kids!



He treated poor Job that way.



The God of the Bible appears to me to be fashioned after a petty, insecure human ruler who fearing his subjects will rise up against him, destroys their ability to do so.



As I said, he never explained it to Job!

Well what if those God gave life to, only desired to destroy life; particularly innocent life? Then what should God do? What if all of God's creations are truly guilty?

Other then that, I agree with you.

Declarations and commands are surely not reasons and justifications. Perhaps it's assumed that humans have perfect conscience, and perceive already without explanation needed that God is obviously right to do what God does; particularly in the OT.

God said it, and that settles it does NOT sit well with me. Mainly for three reasons: one is that it is blind obedience, two is that the Bible sounds like it is written by brutal, warring ancient sand dwellers that expect blind obedience, and three is that no one has any sense about who God truly is.

I mean if God wants us to know God then write a book explaining God's character, and judgment.

God in no wise way should appear to be a brutal warrior, commanding to kill, when also commanding not to kill.

Clarity and consistency is not attributes of the Bible.

 

[Jagella]

So you are uncertain and not confident you are righteous and will be in heaven?

I don't believe in the Christian heaven or hell, but I'm very righteous. I'm too righteous to tell people I speak for an all-powerful God only to turn around and beg for their money.

And you are OK with being cast in hell for eternity?

I don't believe in hell except for the hell we make for each other. All you can do is try to frighten me with scary stories.

 

[Jagella]

Well what if those God gave life to, only desired to destroy life; particularly innocent life? Then what should God do? What if all of God's creations are truly guilty?

An omnipotent God can handle all that. He can use his limitless powers to disallow those who choose to destroy life to destroy life. That way nobody, evil or innocent, needs to suffer. Please keep in mind that we weak humans must struggle to limit the acts of evildoers. Since God is all-mighty, or so we are told, he is very different and need not struggle with evil like we do.

Declarations and commands are surely not reasons and justifications. Perhaps it's assumed that humans have perfect conscience, and perceive already without explanation needed that God is obviously right to do what God does; particularly in the OT.

Some people seem to think they have the perfect ability to judge God as perfectly righteous. In so doing they make Gods out of themselves.

God said it, and that settles it does NOT sit well with me. Mainly for three reasons: one is that it is blind obedience, two is that the Bible sounds like it is written by brutal, warring ancient sand dwellers that expect blind obedience, and three is that no one has any sense about who God truly is.

Some people prefer not to think too much about right and wrong and would rather be spoon-fed their morality by a supposedly perfectly moral authority. When they do so as you say they accept anything that authority dictates without question. I must disagree, though, that those brutal, warring ancient sand dwellers you mention had no sense about who God is. For them their religious leaders were that God's mouthpieces, and the situation ended up with crafty men laying down religious laws to be obeyed by all. The results were disastrous as we both know.

I mean if God wants us to know God then write a book explaining God's character, and judgment.

A God doesn't need a book, but people do. So guess who authored the Bible.

God in no wise way should appear to be a brutal warrior, commanding to kill, when also commanding not to kill.

I never could figure that one out. It seems that the fifth commandment was written by somebody in a hurry who had no time to think out the issue of killing.

Clarity and consistency is not attributes of the Bible.

If they were, then there would not be 45,000 Christian sects.

 

[1213]

So you are uncertain and not confident you are righteous and will be in heaven? And you are OK with being cast in hell for eternity?

It is possible that I am not righteous enough. I don’t think I am the right person to judge.

I am ok with the idea that if I am not righteous, I will be cast into hell, which means I will be destroyed utterly. If I am not righteous, it means I am bad and would make the eternal life bad and I don’t want to ruin it, which is why I think hell is right and good for me then.

....destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

 

[1213]

1213! We meet again. As you may know I got banned from Debating Christianity three times for telling the truth.

Sorry to hear that you got banned. It is difficult for me to believe it would have been because of “telling the truth”.

1213How long has it been since you gave all your possessions to the poor, and did it hurt when you became a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven?

Where has God commanded people to give up all their possessions and become eunuchs?

1213
How can you love your neighbor when you believe she's going to hell?

I have understood love means I care and don’t do anything evil to others. I don’t know who is going to hell, but even if I would, why would that prevent me to love them?

1213
Wouldn't it be better if everybody got to heaven?

Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. I think it is because they have right understanding and attitude and love others as God wants. If unrighteous would get the eternal life, they would make it eternal suffering for all, which is why I think it is good that they don’t get it.

 

[F1fan]

It is possible that I am not righteous enough. I don’t think I am the right person to judge.

But you already did.

And since you are a believer, and God sent messages via the Bible and Quran, among other books, you suggesting you can't judge suggests God was wrong to trust that we humans can understand the messages, and adjust our behavior according to the laws.

What I see many more conservative Christians doing is relying on their own interpretation of the Bible as a moral framework, and acting through that authority. the dilemma is how far away this framework is from what Jesus taught. So these folks feel pretty confident that they have it right (righteous) and won't question their motives or actions regardless of the criticisms and effects.

To my mind Christians should never feel certain they are moral enough. They should be bending over backwards working in service to others as Jesus did, and then they can earn a way into heaven. These works are the path. Yet I see some conservatives insist this isn't the case, that they work to promote their interpretation of God's word, and aren't bothered with duty to other humans, especially outside their tribe.

I am ok with the idea that if I am not righteous, I will be cast into hell, which means I will be destroyed utterly. If I am not righteous, it means I am bad and would make the eternal life bad and I don’t want to ruin it, which is why I think hell is right and good for me then.

....destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

I think you are first Christian who was cavalier about hell. If you are indifferent why bother conforming to Christianity in any way?

 

[F1fan]

I don't believe in the Christian heaven or hell, but I'm very righteous. I'm too righteous to tell people I speak for an all-powerful God only to turn around and beg for their money.

Thus too weak to give in to your greed for God's sake, because God needs your help.

I don't believe in hell except for the hell we make for each other. All you can do is try to frighten me with scary stories.

I actually suspect the heaven/hell binary was purely symbolic originally. It took the evolution of Christianity as a political force that it made them "real" and to be used as coercion and a threat to dupe believers, and hone the authority the leadership held over the masses.

To my mind Christians would be smart to revert these concepts back to symbolisms of states of mind. They could say that being honorable, ethical, charitable, loving, etc. brings a heavenly state of mind to the Christian, and fraud, cheating, deception, lies, prejudice, etc. brings a hellish state. These metaphors would actually be practical as a theological message, not seeking some future state where today and tomorrow is open to be a vile person holding a valid "get out of hell" pass. Salvation could be explained as how the person saves themselves from hell by living a more principled and decent life, in service to others and society as a whole. This could help build the dying notion in conservative politics that society has to cooperate and compromise for the sake of everyone. The greed and selfishness that Christianity allows today is essentially anti-Christ. And there's irony in how Christians have predicted the rise of the Antichrist, and it might be them.

 

[1213]

…and then they can earn a way into heaven. These works are the path.

Sorry, I don’t think that is a Biblical teaching, because Bible says eternal life is a gift for righteous. I don’t believe anyone can earn his way into heaven.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

…I think you are first Christian who was cavalier about hell. If you are indifferent why bother conforming to Christianity in any way?

I want to be a disciple of Jesus (“Christian”), because I think he is a great teacher and the best king. I want to live by his teachings, because I think they are good.

But, there is no reason to fear hell for me, because:
1. Hell can’t do anything on its own. If person goes to hell, it is by God.
2. People who go to hell are evil.

Only reason to fear hell for me would be that I would fear that evil ends. I have no problem with the idea that evil ends someday, even if it means that I also die then.

 

[Jagella]

Sorry to hear that you got banned. It is difficult for me to believe it would have been because of “telling the truth”.

Otseng and his thugs routinely censored my posts and even entire threads whenever my critiques became too damaging to his faith. What really galled me was his refusal to take action against those who said I was lying which is against his own rule! I was flagged for pointing out that the Christians there lied to me, yet those who accused me of lying got away with it.

Where has God commanded people to give up all their possessions and become eunuchs?

See Luke 18:22 and Matthew 19:12. Have you failed to read these passages, or are you reluctant to admit it?

I have understood love means I care and don’t do anything evil to others.

You smear others as unrighteous and say they should be destroyed. That's evil enough for me, and I don't want that kind of "care."

I don’t know who is going to hell, but even if I would, why would that prevent me to love them?

Your religion clearly states that unbelievers will burn in hell. See Mark 16:16. Love means to respect others, and believing they deserve to burn isn't very respectful.

Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. I think it is because they have right understanding and attitude and love others as God wants. If unrighteous would get the eternal life, they would make it eternal suffering for all, which is why I think it is good that they don’t get it.

You're not the first to come up with these kinds of ideas. The God-believers who flew planes into the World Trade Center did so because their holy book told them that eternal life is only for the righteous who obey and understand God. The infidels needed to be destroyed to prevent their contaminating the righteous. The result of their kind of thinking and your kind of thinking was 3,000 people killed.

That's why I hate religion.