Putting god first!

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why should what some people do or believe sicken you?

I don't think one has control over that.

For example, when I see someone enslave a human being and subsequently treat that person horribly and abuse him/her, then that will sicken me.

I can only hope that it would sicken you to....

So, do you really need to ask the "why" question?
Why does stuff sicken someone?

Well... because the stuff is clashing with that person's ethical and moral values...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree.

I don't know if you have children, but every mistake they make ... you are the one to be blamed, that's what you try to say here, aren't you?

False analogy.

Yes, I "created" my children. But I had no control at all about the outcome, nore was there an "intended" outcome. My "creation process" was limited to having sex.

I didn't design those kids. I didn't decide how human psychology works. I didn't do anything. I just had sex.

This creator god supposedly had FULL control over not only the entire process, but also over the intended outcome.

If people are like X, then they are like that because God designed them that way. That's the implication of your religious creation lore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's too bad you're sickened. Submit it to prayer and perhaps God can straighten that out for you.

Do you realise that what you suggested here, is the equivalent of suggesting someone who is "sickened" by the action of Adolf Hitler, to bring his concerns to him so that perhaps Hitler can "straighten that out for him"?

 

[stvdv]

God was the worst parent if it deliberately created a son so that it he would die to save humanity from its own screw up.

I don't get it.

If I read a story written by a man, and his story is crazy and absurd, then I conclude "the writer is crazy" ... not the "fictional person in the story"
So at best the disciples wrote their own stories ... creating the Bible ... if the story makes no sense or has inconsistencies and errors, then I conclude the disciple lacks discrimination. You are blaming the "character" God created by the writer (disciple). Your blame focus is upside-down.

Obvious the writer is messed up because he writes the story as if the story is "not messed up" and all verses make sense ... Bible being not incoherent. Obvious that is not the case (see all the threads about Bible inconsistencies). So the logical conclusion is that the writer got it wrong and is lacking discrimination. So no need to read it again, and for sure no need to debate about a "messed up character (God)" when in reality it is the writer that made the mistakes.

 

[JJ50]

I don't get it.

If I read a story written by a man, and his story is crazy and absurd, then I conclude "the writer is crazy" ... not the "fictional person in the story"
So at best the disciples wrote their own stories ... creating the Bible ... if the story makes no sense or has inconsistencies and errors, then I conclude the disciple lacks discrimination. You are blaming the "character" God created by the writer (disciple). Your blame focus is upside-down.

Obvious the writer is messed up because he writes the story as if the story is "not messed up" and all verses make sense ... Bible being not incoherent. Obvious that is not the case (see all the threads about Bible inconsistencies). So the logical conclusion is that the writer got it wrong and is lacking discrimination. So no need to read it again, and for sure no need to debate about a "messed up character (God)" when in reality it is the writer that made the mistakes.

The writers created god, there is no verifiable evidence any supernatural entity exists, imo. I am making my point about the god character to those who are Biblical literalists and fail to see how ghastly the deeds attributed to it are.

 

[stvdv]

False analogy.

Yes, I "created" my children. But I had no control at all about the outcome, nore was there an "intended" outcome. My "creation process" was limited to having sex.
I didn't design those kids. I didn't decide how human psychology works. I didn't do anything. I just had sex.
This creator god supposedly had FULL control over not only the entire process, but also over the intended outcome.
If people are like X, then they are like that because God designed them that way. That's the implication of your religious creation lore.

You conveniently leave out many variables, behaving like you got the whole picture and got it right. If adding "Freedom to choose" + some natural Laws like "Newton's third Law" there is a complete different picture and your above words make no sense

And your last line makes no sense at all ... "not my religious creation lore" ... that's another line you conveniently added
I don't believe in the "God of the Bible"

 

[stvdv]

The writers created god, there is no verifiable evidence any supernatural entity exists, imo. I am making my point about the god character to those who are Biblical literalists and fail to see how ghastly the deeds attributed to it are.

Then better blame the Bible and the writers ... not blaming "God" ... to prove something it's easiest to start where it went wrong
Example: If Einstein would have said "planet X destroyed planet Y" and it appeared to be wrong, then it's crazy to blame "planet X for destroying planet Y" ... it makes sense to say "Einstein created a false/fake story" ... useless to start talking about these planets acting out

 

[JJ50]

Then better blame the Bible and the writers ... not blaming "God" ... to prove something it's easiest to start where it went wrong
Example: If Einstein would have said "planet X destroyed planet Y" and it appeared to be wrong, then it's crazy to blame "planet X for destroying planet Y" ... it makes sense to say "Einstein created a false/fake story" ... useless to start talking about these planets acting out

I AM NOT BLAMING GOD, as I don't believe any exist. I have stated time after time that I am of the opinion all gods worshipped by humans are created by them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A "non-existent God" is just your opinion, not based on facts or evidence. Science has never established that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist.

I partly disagree.

A supernatural even is an event that, quite literally, can't happen. As it necessarily requires the suspension or violation of natural laws. And when we call something "impossible", then that is exactly what we mean by that word: it would require natural laws to be violated / suspended.

So the "supernatural" is pretty much "impossible" - by definition of the words "supernatural" and "impossible".

A "supernatural miracle" is something that can not happen yet happens anyway, after all...



As for God not existing... true, that's someting that hasn't been proven (and which, I'ld argue, can't be proven - since you can't falsify the unfalsifiable).

But you know, on the other hand.... The same goes for alien abduction, bigfoot, pixies, lepreachauns, unicorns, etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you never studied the historical evidences for Jesus and his resurrection?

There isn't a single shred of evidence for any supernatural thing whatsoever - be it resurrections or other magical shenannigans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was a test...God was never going to ask him to do that....

Except, according to the story, God asked exactly that.
That he supposedly stopped it at the very last instant, is irrelevant.

We have a Father asked to sacrifice his only begotten son (in Abraham's case the son of the promise) and we see a willingness on the part of the father to unhesitatingly demonstrate faith in his God's requirements, even if he didn't understand them.

Which is nothing short of inhuman, barbaric, psychopathic,...

That Abraham was willing to go along with it is NOT commendable. It is reprehensible.
And God in that story, as the one demanding it, is even worse then Abraham

Literally everything about that story stinks of immorality, barbarism, psychopathy, ...

It's not a tale on morals and loyalty like bible worshippers like to believe.
Instead, it should serve as a warning to all humans as to to what kind of terrible, barbaric, inhuman, psychopathic and immoral bs "blind faith" and blind obedience to a perceived authority can lead.

This "commendable" quality of Abraham is actually EXACTLY what islamic suicide bombers do. Out of pure dogmatism and blind faith, they are willing to engage in the most reprehensible deeds because they think that will please their perceived authority.

Abraham's story reads like a blue print on how to become a mindless, psychopathic and immoral religious terrorist....

There is nothing "creepy" about that account...we can learn so much from these pictorial events, if we look for their meaning.

One of those things we learn then, is that Islamic terrorists are thus very good people and just unfortunate that they are obbeying "the wrong god".

It's reprehensible from beginning to end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Jewish tradition, recorded by Josephus, says that Isaac was 25 years old at the time. At any rate, he was old enough and strong enough to carry a considerable quantity of wood up a mountain. So, he could have resisted his 125-year-old father

So, abraham managed to have sex at age 100?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who said God created childhood leukemia?
Who said that God is responsible for the diseases carried by mosquitoes? Or any other affliction for that matter?

Didn't your god create everything - including nasty microbes and viruses, as well as DNA/cells that can go cancerous?

The human immune system, if it functioned at its peak performance would not allow a single human to become ill from any external or internal cause.

You should learn how the immune system works, because it sounds like you don't have a clue.

It is designed as a strong defense against any foreign organism entering or developing within the body.

Against KNOWN foreign organisms. This is why millions died in latin america when the Spanish came to shore carrying with them pathogens from European mainland.

We lost our physical perfection back in Eden with all that it meant for the optimal functioning of our minds and bodies

No, we didn't "lose" anything in magical lala-land, because we were never there.

We continue to take in all that this world wants to offload on us so that they can make money.

It is obvious that they have no regard or respect for human life.​

"they"?

Our food is contaminated and grown in nutrient and mineral deficient soil. Instead of natural fertilizers, we have tons of chemical fertilizers and pesticides contaminating our food. The processing makes sure that it has a long shelf life so that they can continue to make large profits...but the food is dead....processed till all the goodness is taken out of it.

First, many of the "manipulation" really isn't as harmfull as you make it out to be.
Second, you're talking "large industry". Nobody stops you from buying bio food from a local farmer that doesn't use any pesticides etc.

We saturate our existence in synthetics of every sort when our bodies were designed for natural living foods and plant based fabrics.
The air we breathe is polluted with all manner of toxic substances that make us sick, and the water we drink is likewise polluted with chemicals that were never designed to enter the human body.

And yet, our life expectancy is 3x what it was before the industrial revolution.
So, what's that about?

Something doesn't add up in your claims.
Not that I'm going to deny that there is irresponsible pollution or anything... off course there is and it needs to be dealt with.

But you are specifically talking about how "bad" life is today.
The fact is that, on average, we live 3 times longer then back when none of this pollution and food manipulation existed. 3 TIMES longer. Not 3 years longer. But 3 TIMES longer.

And let's not even start talking about miscariages and infant mortality being so low today that you might as well say that it is almost non-existant compared to not more then 150 years ago.


So... what's that about?
If everything today is ow so bad and ow so unhealthy and if "they" don't care at all about human lives and only about profits and what not... while back before the industrial revolution and capitalism everything was apparantly "so much better".... How do you explain that life expectancy is 3-fold of what it used to be and that things like infant mortality are at an all-time low?

God didn't make us sick...humans did. And the system we live in continues to make sure that we never get well....they are making a fortune off our ill health.

There's "they" again.
And again, back before "they" were doing their thing, infant mortality was through the roof and life expectancy was ridiculously low. Today, it's not.

So what are you complaining about, really?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't get it.

If I read a story written by a man, and his story is crazy and absurd, then I conclude "the writer is crazy" ... not the "fictional person in the story"

Why?

I can look at Star Wars and say that Anakin Skywalker is crazy and made bad decisions as a result.
It's prefectly fine to read a story and analyse/evaluate the morality of the characters in said story.

So at best the disciples wrote their own stories ... creating the Bible ... if the story makes no sense or has inconsistencies and errors, then I conclude the disciple lacks discrimination. You are blaming the "character" God created by the writer (disciple). Your blame focus is upside-down.

Obvious the writer is messed up because he writes the story as if the story is "not messed up" and all verses make sense ... Bible being not incoherent. Obvious that is not the case (see all the threads about Bible inconsistencies). So the logical conclusion is that the writer got it wrong and is lacking discrimination. So no need to read it again, and for sure no need to debate about a "messed up character (God)" when in reality it is the writer that made the mistakes.

Sure.

But none of that stops us from arguing the hypothetical in context of the story.

 

[stvdv]

I AM NOT BLAMING GOD, as I don't believe any exist. I have stated time after time that I am of the opinion all gods worshipped by humans are created by them.

The way you put it here makes more sense to me.
I also believe that "Gods worshipped by humans are created by them"
That's why I never even think about "how could God do this or that"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You conveniently leave out many variables

No. You conveniently ignored the difference between "creating" a human by dropping a sperm seed and then letting nature run its course on the one hand, and fully "designing" a human being form scratch with a specific intentional outcome in mind.

If adding "Freedom to choose" + some natural Laws like "Newton's third Law" there is a complete different picture and your above words make no sense

No, because the natural / instinctive impulses, which heavily influence the choices we make (or not), were put there explicitly by the god in question.

For example, he gave them instinctive pretty much uncontrollable biological sexual needs and then told them "lust is bad".

He made them naturally and instinctively curious and subsequently asked to suppress that natural urge.

As "the hitch" so famously said: created sick and commanded to be well

And your last line makes no sense at all ... "not my religious creation lore" ... that's another line you conveniently added
I don't believe in the "God of the Bible"

Mistakenly assumed you were a christian.

Not that it matters to the points being made though.

 

[stvdv]

Why?

I can look at Star Wars and say that Anakin Skywalker is crazy and made bad decisions as a result.
It's prefectly fine to read a story and analyse/evaluate the morality of the characters in said story.

Sure.
But none of that stops us from arguing the hypothetical in context of the story.

I totally agree that we can learn from stories, but in the end it still is a story, hence my reply (I feel no need to find fault with "God")
Again I agree about "arguing the hypothetical in context of the story"

My reply (not to you) came because I sensed some emotional irritation towards God, which sounded "unreal" to me; God being figment of imagination, unless someone can declare he/she has seen God of course. And not to belittle this "imagination", because from Advaita viewpoint the whole world is a "figment of imagination" ... only Consciousness is real. And still we can use our imagination to learn "stuff"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I totally agree that we can learn from stories, but in the end it still is a story, hence my reply (I feel no need to find fault with "God")
Again I agree about "arguing the hypothetical in context of the story"

My reply (not to you) came because I sensed some emotional irritation towards God, which sounded "unreal" to me; God being figment of imagination, unless someone can declare he/she has seen God of course. And not to belittle this "imagination", because from Advaita viewpoint the whole world is a "figment of imagination" ... only Consciousness is real. And still we can use our imagination to learn "stuff"

You need to keep in mind who the post is addressed too: theists. God believers.

In context of that communication partner, we CAN discuss the hypothetical as if were real.
Because actually real or not, the theists are worshipping this being. Not the being itself, because it's unobservable and undetectable. So what is being worshipped, by definition, is the concept of this being.

When talking to those people, you need to take into account that in context of that conversation, the concept of God is as real to them as your non-imaginary wife is to you.


Perhaps a concrete example would make sense. Pardon the Godwin thingy, but it's for clarity.

Suppose that there's zero evidence that WW2 ever happened and that Adolf Hitler can't be shown to be any more then a character in a book. So we can then consider Hitler as a "concept" much like the biblical god. Let's say that Nazi's are people who completely believe the claims of this book AND worship Hitler as their god.

We unbelievers, don't believe this Hitler ever existed.
But when we are talking to Nazi's and explicitly discussing the character of this Hitler as depicted in the book... wouldn't you expect things to get a bit emotional? I sure would.

At no point would I believe this Hitler character to be real.
Yet, I'ld find the entire concept reprehensible and judge nazi's for not seeing it.

 

[atanu]

I don't think one has control over that.

If you were to put God first in your life without harming anyone, should that sicken anyone?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you were to put God first in your life without harming anyone, should that sicken anyone?

Honestly, I don't think it's possible that that won't harm anyone.

After all, it's people who are "putting God first" (or better said: their "god beliefs" first) that are refusing blood transfusion for their kids who might badly need them.

To put a thing "first", means that you'll necessarily put other things in second place.
Things, that would otherwise be on the first place. Actual real things, instead of things indistinguishable from the imaginary. ;-)

To put such beliefs on the very first spot in your life, while imo inevitably eventually lead to bad decisions, which most certainly will be harmfull to yourself or loved ones.