One thing that has always stood out to me as long as I can remember is:
Why do fallible humans ALWAYS have to enforce God's laws and will?
The Bible says, God will do this; the Quran says, Allah will do that; The Torah says God will do the Other; ... if you think or act out certain behaviors ... they are ALL specific that GOD will do these thing and that God will hold judgement and mete out "punishment(s)".
Yet ... we never seem to see an instance of God doing the meting or judging - it's ALWAYS the humans!
If someone takes the lord's name in vane or says something derogatory against the church or religion, faithful HUMANS feel compelled to lash out and "defend" their god/religion. Going back to when I was a young child, this ALWAYS struck me as strange - Why would humans need to risk life, limb and liberty to fight or defend the biggest baddest most capable-est deity/entity in the universe?!? I could never wrap my mind around how the logic plays. God could strike down anyone who angered him (or so the bible tells) yet I am supposed to punch little Johnny in the mouth for saying Jesus was a putz?!? Even as a believing child, when faced with such conundrums, I'd merely say something to the effect of "God will get you for that" but even as a very young believer I never felt compelled to take an action other than to pass on the rule of god and "maybe" stop interacting with someone of differing beliefs.
Of course today I realize, there is no god(s) and know that insulting any deity will not be met with a supernatural sanction (or lightning bolt) ... nor will there be any final judgement AFTER death - unless it's at the eulogy of the deceased offender.
Why does this come to mind now? Because recently I've become aware of the most vile threats that the religious folks (usually the most ardent - not so much the casual) throw at ANYone who even utters the most mundane contradiction to their religion. The slightest things cause the fervently religious to have a scorched earth policy on anything that "might" even be remotely viewed as contrary to their god/religion. Example: ISIS blowing up archaeological sites ... because, you know, old bricks and pottery shards could ... excuse me ... what can they do to your god again? Exactly how weak and fragile is your god that looking at old bricks will cause your god irreparable harm?
I was always taught that god, creator of the heavens and Earth, father of all humanity, was beyond reproach and untouchable when it came to the puny, feeble antics of non-believing humans. And I am equally sure that god didn't "tell" you to act on his behalf because he really has no time or energy to worry about who called his son a putz and/or anything else of this earth - I mean, for fuck's sake - he has a LAKE OF FIRE to roast people for eternity in when he judges them, right?!? Not good enough for his human minions though, evidently. Nope, THEY (the humans) feel a NEED to act on god's behalf and exact worldly retribution ... and the reason is clear ... even THEY don't trust god to do it ... because they REALLY know he is not there ... now or ever :P
"Why do fallible humans ALWAYS have to enforce God's laws and will?"
ReplyDeleteFirst things, first: What they're really enforcing(or attempting to enforce) is their own ideals about the way things should be.
With that much out of the way, it should be crystal clear why they attempt to do this(and then try to give it God's seal of approval)
Yes, that much I "get" ... they (the humans) make the mortal decision to do punish those who choose to behave or think in any way that runs counter to their preferred worldview ... this should go without saying. I also think it plays into a twisted sadistic mindset that says "If god can do it, why wait for him, might as well get started ASAP"
DeleteOf course I recognize that this is nothing but fear and intimidation pure plain and simple - do what I say or we'll kill/maim/rape/destroy/confiscate you, your family and/or your possessions. ... and oh, by the way, we have god on our side and he'll do the same so that gives us carte blanche to get the ball rolling. I mean, If you've offended their god and the penalty is eternal torment then eternity should start ASAP ... never mind the part where god is supposed to do the judgement.
I think this also has something to do with why so many believers are just fine with the heaven/hell model and don't give it a second thought that their eternity in heaven will consist of actually WATCHING the hell bound suffer in their torment from their harp laden cloud perch.
It's really revolting to think that these folks are actually looking forward to this heavenly "entertainment" that they are compelled to get and witness - with delicious satisfaction - both the mortal and supernatural extraction of their pound of flesh.
But this issue of humans doing the judging and punishing FOR god was probably - from a VERY early age - the first moment of cognitive dissonance that I experienced regarding religion and reality.
"...this is nothing but fear and intimidation pure plain and simple - do what I say or we'll kill/maim/rape/destroy/confiscate you, your family and/or your possessions."
ReplyDeleteLeave out the part of God and we have pure and simple the need to show who is the most powerful without taking anyone's feelings into consideration. It's sickening that it's being done in the name of God. God should be about morals and love to improve life, but instead he's become a wildcard for torture, rape and killings.
"God should be about morals and love to improve life[.....]"
ReplyDeleteSays who? If your answer is "Says me", then I'm curious as to what capacity this "God" should be about "morals and love", since it's demonstrably false that, a) we need an example of "love" to practice or exude "love", and b) there exists an objective morality. Ethics are situational. Is lying, killing, and stealing wrong in every situation? No. Suggesting that we'd need a "God" for those things, even rhetorically, is blasphemy, and it spits directly into the face of what it means to be human.
Delete"...then I'm curious as to what capacity this "God" should be about "morals and love"..."
God is supposed to be benevolent, at least, that's what I was made to believe growing up. That BibleGod isn't, when taking a closer look at the Bible, is something else. Please note that as a Catholic I was raised fairly "liberal", which meant that stories/texts were explained as metaphorical.
"...since it's demonstrably false that, a) we need an example of "love" to practice or exude "love"..."
Whereas I do agree with that we are able to change, knowing better at some point in our lives despite are upbringing, there is something like "monkey see, monkey do". What is being shown is what is being repeated, unless there are other influences to make one experience differently.
"Suggesting that we'd need a "God" for those things, even rhetorically, is blasphemy..."
'Not sure why you call this blasphemy, but I'm certain you can explain this to me. Do we need a God for these things? Of course not. Most certainly not, since God shows us very different morals (like blood atonement for instance).
"...and it spits directly into the face of what it means to be human."
Human, as in, we are "allowed" to make mistakes?
"Do we need a God for these things? Of course not. Most certainly not[...]"
DeleteThen as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to discuss/debate/explain, and in which case, talking about what "God" should be "about" is a moot point, AKA, a point of zero practical value, as is talking about what "God" is "supposed to be", as seen here...
God is supposed to be benevolent, at least, that's what I was made to believe growing up.
"Most certainly not, since God shows us very different morals (like blood atonement for instance)."
No "God" has been established, but even under the pretense that there's a "God" that "shows us" things likes morals, we'd have no use for him/her/it and/or his/her/its morals.
Me: "...since it's demonstrably false that, a) we need an example of 'love' to practice or exude 'love'..."
Response: "Whereas I do agree with that we are able to change, knowing better at some point in our lives despite [our] upbringing, there is something like 'monkey see, monkey do'. What is being shown is what is being repeated, unless there are other influences to make one experience differently."
Best as I can tell, every bit of that is tangential and not remotely related to my statement(a statement for which we've already established agreement, BTW) .
"...talking about what "God" should be "about" is a moot point..."
DeleteMaybe to you it is, but I was trying to get across the discrepancy between what I was taught about God growing up, as opposed to what others are doing in the name of God. Now whereas I do realize that BibleGod's wasn't benevolent at all (and in the process being a lousy role model) he usually gets associated with "love" by those who do not take the Bible too literally.
You, previously: "...since it's demonstrably false that, a) we need an example of 'love' to practice or exude 'love'..."
Me: "What is being shown is what is being repeated, unless there are other influences to make one experience differently."
You: "Best as I can tell, every bit of that is tangential and not remotely related to my statement"
The moment you started talking about being able to practice or exude "love" without ever having had the right examples (and which BTW doesn't refer to God but to upbringing), there is logic in me saying that people usually repeat the behavior they've experienced/seen when growing up, which happens to be the total opposite of your first counter argument. Since Bobbie brought up how humans are punishing others on behalf of God, resembling nothing more than sick power play, it seemed reasonable enough to bring it up.
"Maybe to you it is"
DeleteYes.
God is supposed to be ... - Lexje
ReplyDeleteYeah, I can't help but agree, strongly, with boomSLANG here ... If you can't establish "god" then you can't realistically debate his attributes. It's like saying "Invisible Unicorns should be PINK" ... well that's just great, but there isn't any evidence to suggest the existence of unicorns (narwhal's not withstanding) invisible or visible, to stake a claim on the particular hue one such beast should be.. In other words, you can't get there from here, in my opinion - because the train just doesn't GO there and there is no track laid to get there.
Folks can wish and aspire as to what should and should not be all damn day - but the only thing that matters is what IS ... you can kill someone for drawing a caricature of your deity and "claim" your loving god dictates this slaying ... but what IS is - you are a murderer - plain and simple.
"Folks can wish and aspire as to what should and should not be all damn day" ~ R. Hall
DeleteYes, and since the subject was raised, I'd like to know upon what grounds a "God" should be this, that, or the other thing. Who says a "God" should be about love or about improving life? Moreover, maybe there's more than one "God"? Who says there isn't? We can't know with any certainty that there isn't, thus, I don't know that there isn't. Is it plausible, though. Well, that's an entirely different question.
"Yes, and since the subject was raised, I'd like to know upon what grounds a "God" should be this, that, or the other thing. Who says a "God" should be about love or about improving life?" ~ boomSLANG
DeleteWhen you inquired about this before, I didn't understand what you were getting at. I talked to Bobbie for a while to get a better understanding of what you meant. Combined with what I've been reading lately I now am realizing that the version I grew up with has been colored by what I was taught about God and this in no way has to resemble how others are perceiving God. My version is based on being a "liberal" Xian. The stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, but to be seen as metaphors. Hell is not something I got threatened with. Realizing there are totally different views as to what God is like, is something I'm still processing. Apparently there is no default image of what God is like.
"Moreover, maybe there's more than one "God"? Who says there isn't? We can't know with any certainty that there isn't, thus, I don't know that there isn't." ~ boomSLANG
That's what I love about "Vikings", a series which is on tv for a few months now over here. It goes into the differences between how the Vikings perceive their Gods versus the one God from the Xians. It's an eyeopener, to see how the priest changes from Xian to Pagan and isn't capable of turning back to Xianity.
It's getting a bit confusing with all these answers being located in different areas, especially since they are linked to one another.
"My version is based on being a 'liberal' Xian. The stories in the Bible are not to be taken literally, but to be seen as metaphors."
DeleteThe reason that this 'mindset' doesn't fly is simple, which is, if we take the times that the central character of the Holy Bible acts evil, non-life affirming, and plain vile, and if we write-off those actions as "metaphor"(not literal), then to be fair, we must also write-off as "metaphor" the times that this central character's actions are good and life-affirming.
Thus, I contend that the "liberal Christian" taking the mode of action that you describe above is left with nothing concrete. There is seriously nothing substantial left to extol or uphold. It's one long, ambiguous, subjective "metaphor", which ends up being a ginormous grab-bag. IOW, not worth a plug nickel.
"It's getting a bit confusing with all these answers being located in different areas, especially since they are linked to one another."
Different areas? Huh? You mean, like at the bottom of this one thread? And yes, linked...as in, someone starts a topic and then readers respond(if they want to), usual by hitting "reply" under the post they're responding to and most of the time even quoting the person to lessen the chance of confusion. I personally fail to see what's so confusing about that.
It's one long, ambiguous, subjective "metaphor", which ends up being a ginormous grab-bag. - boom
DeleteI'll do you one better - since it ALL basically becomes one big metaphorical cherry tree - each and every person who subscribes LITERALLY creates their very own tailor made religion specifically for themselves ... like a piece of abstract artwork - every individual "beholder" will "see" something different and therefore "important" ... talk about your "personal god" ... jeeze louise! It's maddness
~ boomSLANG
Delete"...if we take the times that the central character of the Holy Bible acts evil, non-life affirming, and plain vile, and if we write-off those actions as "metaphor"(not literal), then to be fair, we must also write-off as "metaphor" the times that this central character's actions are good and life-affirming."
Agreed. And that's what I nowadays tell others as well. Don't just look at the good parts, be aware there is more. The story of Abraham and his first "real" kid always is a real good example. The moment I ask others to realize what God actually suggested, sacrificing your own child (what no parent in their right mind would do), something starts to click. The test of faith slowly becomes less important, compared to what was asked initially. And the fact that this man actually considered doing this, even starting preparations. Seriously? From there switching to Jesus having been sacrificed is not too big a leap. And of course the humans can be blamed, but how about him being almighty and even worse, Jesus feeling like he was left all alone by his father?
It was a shock to me when I first realized that there were so many stories which showed that evil side (take sides, save one, kill the other), which did not align with the "loving" and "caring" side. After that it took only a very short time before I decided that I wanted nothing to do with such a deity.
"Different areas? Huh? You mean, like at the bottom of this one thread?"
Just read on and you'll find replies which are older, yet linked to this one.
~ Bobbie
"...every individual "beholder" will "see" something different and therefore "important" ... talk about your "personal god" ... "
It wasn't until this thread that I realized that not everyone perceived God as a benevolent one when they were still believers. The ten commandments would suggest a right, just deity. But yes, when reading the Bible more careful (and without the colored goggles) it becomes quite clear.
"If you can't establish "god" then you can't realistically debate his attributes."
ReplyDeleteWith the risk of being black and white: what would be the use of discussing any deity and its supposed attributes at all?
"... you can kill someone for drawing a caricature of your deity and "claim" your loving god dictates this slaying ... but what IS is - you are a murderer - plain and simple."
Apparently the Quran knows the ten commandments as well. Quran 5:32 says... "If anyone has killed one person it is as if he had killed the whole mankind".
what would be the use of discussing any deity ...
DeleteYes - things that make you go "Hmmm" ... it all seems pointless when you realize there is no evidence for any such things. That said, there ARE a large percentage on people who firmly believe in one deity or other ... yet they tend to (purposely or unwittingly) act contrary to the wishes/requirements of their chosen deity ... so in that context, I supposed debate could be useful ... but in this conversation (thus far) no one ascribes to the existence of any such deity and thus, debating non-existent deity attributes is pointless and a waste of time and space. ... unless, of course, you've backslid since this morning and are back on a god team?
Apparently the Quran knows...
Yeah, and like the bible, there is likely a disclaimer that is very specific to point out that these rules ONLY apply if you kill believers/followers of the tenets of the specific deity ... all others are fair game and can be killed without sanction as if stepping on ants ... seems logical and fair (snicker)
"in this conversation (thus far) no one ascribes to the existence of any such deity and thus, debating non-existent deity attributes is pointless and a waste of time and space"
DeleteThank you.
"... but in this conversation (thus far) no one ascribes to the existence of any such deity and thus, debating non-existent deity attributes is pointless and a waste of time and space."
ReplyDeleteOk, it took me a while, but I now understand what the both of you were trying to get across. It's yet another change in my line of thinking.
"... unless, of course, you've backslid since this morning and are back on a god team?"
Let me think about that for a moment.
...
...
...
NO.
"Yeah, and like the bible, there is likely a disclaimer that is very specific to point out that these rules ONLY apply if you kill believers/followers of the tenets of the specific deity ... all others are fair game and can be killed without sanction..."
Oh... how could I forget. Not everybody is considered a (read worthy) "person".... Never in a million years did I expect the rules behind religion to be this complicated, at least not till not too long ago. :-(
Never in a million years did I expect the rules behind religion to be this complicated - Lexje
DeleteIt not complicated at ALL ... as long as you get on your knees and do EXACTLY what the priest tells you to ... If he says "put it in your mouth" you open up and swallow ...
Oh no Bobbie. That's too graphic! Yikes!
DeleteThat's too graphic! - Lexje
DeleteI was talking about the cheap salt-free cracker and thimble of welches grape juice ... what were YOU thinking?!? :P
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I was talking about the cheap salt-free cracker and thimble of welches grape juice ... what were YOU thinking?!? :P"
ReplyDeleteHmmm.... I might have believed that if either one of us had been living in Japan, although I do not see how this would rhyme with crackers and Xianity... As for your question, I have a vague recollection about a certain obligation (requirement)... ;-)
Oops, I missed something. Got it now (with a little help)...
ReplyDeleteI guess we chalk it up to "Lost in translation/Language barrier" ... but holy communion is generally offered as a communion wafer (body of Christ - in the form of a cheap salt free cracker-like morsel) and wine/grape juice (the blood of Christ) in either a small cup (something "thimble"-like or ... something) or poured directly into the mouth.||
DeleteSome churches do it standing up - other require you on your knees for the to put it in your mouth ... however it's done, you're required to "receive" ans swallow at their direction ... any other similar "actions" that could be mistook for the holy communion rite as describe is strictly coincidental ... or is it? In any regard, I didn't design the ritual, I just report it - I'll let the readers decide if it reminds them of "something" less ... umm ... christian? ;)
"holy communion is generally offered as a communion wafer (body of Christ - in the form of a cheap salt free cracker-like morsel) and wine/grape juice (the blood of Christ) in either a small cup (something 'thimble'-like or ... something) or poured directly into the mouth."
DeleteSo, Christians are essentially doing a mock cannibalistic ritual(consuming the dead body of a Jewish carpenter), and then washing it down by drinking some mock blood, which, in any other situation, they'd no doubt label the practice "Satanic".
Cuckoo, cuckoo