God's purpose

[Magrat]

Oh Dear... another "skeptic" who does not understand the difference between "unreasonable" and "allowed to."

Everyone is "allowed to" post, and I am "allowed to" point out that such comments are utterly worthless and pointless.

Kinda like your post quoted above.

Okey dokey. Here's my useful thoughts:

There were at least three gods in the old testament, but let's pretend for a minute they're all the same individual. This dude poofed people into existence because he was lonely (even though he was speaking to other gods in the first chapter of genesis) and placed them into the perfect garden. In this garden he placed two trees, the tree of eternal life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because reasons. He tells the peeps he placed there (two different stories about how he made them, BTW, but carry forward) not to touch them instead of like, using his magic god poof powers to move the trees elsewhere or whatever. Again, reasons.

Talking snakes shows up. No other creatures (other than humans, who aren't considered animals here, even though we are literally primates and thus, animals) can talk, but Eve is like What up talking snake? And snake says, eat this! And eve knows literally zero, girl was actually born yesterday, for reals, so she eats it. Eve is nice enough to share with her husband (who she didn't get to pick, BTW, so if she didn't like him, oh *********** well deal with it!)

And poof! God is pissed because he left the electrical socket unconvered and baby stuck his (her) finger in! Like, for an all-knowing diety, that was pretty stupid. He could have at least taken away the snakes talking privileges, like what the hell? Adam and eve had the deck stacked against them. Edenite's lives matter, bro!

So anyway, god boots them out of eden so he can live there alone with his trees, and makes the woman suffer in childbirth for listening to the snake (talk about a stupid punishment, that has nothing to do with her "crime"! And if god wants them to "go forth and multiply" wouldn't making labor easy and quick be a better idea?)

adam and eve have kids who apparently marry each other because where else could the people have come from, unless god had this kind of tree racket going on all over the planet and kept torturing people who know nothing for eating! Anyway, kids grow up, and one is a farmer. Farmer dude and his brother the rancher go to give god tribute for not killing them that year or whatever and god is like, your tribute is weak! To farmer dude!

Farmer dude gets bent out of shape because rancher dude is all Mr perfect, and also because god didn't give them any standards or anything to say what he wants, just makes him guess. So he hits his brother in the head with a rock. Of course nobody has ever died before, he couldn't have had any clue what would happen, but god (predictably) punishes him.

More time goes on, and farmer dude and his parents must have been serious about that "multiplying" biz because there's people everywhere! and god can't stand them! Like, okay, you created them in your image so maybe you need some inner love? Idk but he decided to kill everybody except one guy and that guy's family. Drowns them. Can you even picture that for a moment? Every person on earth drowned. Like, the ark must have been surrounded by bodies. Must have been like that scene from the first LOTR when they walk over bodies in a lake. That's just ********** up, seriously.

I have made it through chapter 6 of the first book of the bible. The rest is pretty much the same, the highlight at the end being a schizophrenic being killed by the romans and god getting all pissed at a curtain in the temple. Messed up stuff.

Going off this, being "god breathed" or whatever, I'd have to say god is a sick **** who needs serious therapy and maybe a shot of klonopin in the ass. His purpose seems to be to do as much bad **** to people as possible and then blame their great great great great great great x 3201 grandparents for it, which is also sick. Killing your own son is sick. Worshiping this sick **** is sick. The whole misogynistic, brainwashed, mindless, idiotic load of garbage is sick.

Youre welcome!

 

[Giordano]

One would then expect a discussion of how you understand the theology

Sure! My understanding of Christian theology: what is proposed as to the existence of God/Christ violates many rules of logic and of physics. My understanding of the theology is that therefore these Gods cannot exist, and thus have no purpose.

This is a perfectly reasonable reading of the theology (among many) and serves as a legitimate counterpoint to people such as Franklin Graham, whose own interpretation of Christian theology is that the purpose of the Christian deity is to punish unbelievers by launching hurricanes and earthquakes on areas with large populations of wicked people.

I suspect that your understanding of the Christian theology would be yet different again, and that you believe that both my view and the view of Franklin Graham are incorrect. So you would have a third view of the purpose of the Christian God based on your own reading of theology. Why would one be of these many possible, and legitimate understandings of theology be pointless whereas the others are relevant?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure! My understanding of Christian theology: what is proposed as to the existence of God/Christ violates many rules of logic and of physics.

That didn't take long. You are not seriously contending that "Gods cannot exist" is part of "Christian theology," and therefore you have inexplicably confused your "understanding of Christian theology" with your "opinion" of Christian Theology.

This is so basic, I am a bit surprised that you are confused.

Oh well, thank goodness we didn't waste too much time until we got to: I don't believe in God.

 

[Giordano]

Focus on the hilighted part and compare it to the OP's posts in this thread

I have already indicated in many other threads that I am kind of slow witted, and I regret that I find myself even more clueless than before.

First, you someone wish me to synthesize a conclusion comparing the OP to yet a different member's post. Are you indicating that OP intended the thread to limited to discussions of "God's purpose for us," which we know is actually not the case at all? Or are you instead indicating that the OP prohibited use of analogies to try to explain a viewpoint as to the purpose of God? I don't see that either.

If you simply said that was a terrible analogy, I would have expected you to explain why you believed so. Instead you asked the rest of us for why that was a terrible analogy. I couldn't figure it out and asked you if you knew. Your turn. No need to play coy.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh well, thank goodness we didn't waste too much time until we got to: I don't believe in God.

The scope of the thread has been explicitly indicated as the Abrahamic god. Both the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon are considered scripture dealing with the Abrahamic god. They are thus expressly in scope. Each describes a vastly different idea of the Abrahamic god's purpose. Please give your opinion of those expressions of purpose.

 

[Lothian]

That didn't take long. You are not seriously contending that "Gods cannot exist" is part of "Christian theology," and therefore you have inexplicably confused your "understanding of Christian theology" with your "opinion" of Christian Theology.

This is so basic, I am a bit surprised that you are confused.

Oh well, thank goodness we didn't waste too much time until we got to: I don't believe in God.

You can understand something without believing it to be true. His opinion of Christian Theology is that it is illogical and
Scientifically flawed. In the same way that an understanding of flat earth Theology is that it is illogical and flawed. Of course the Bible postulates a flat earth, I trust the analogy is not too meta for you.

 

[Giordano]

That didn't take long. You are not seriously contending that "Gods cannot exist" is part of "Christian theology," and therefore you have inexplicably confused your "understanding of Christian theology" with your "opinion" of Christian Theology.
This is so basic, I am a bit surprised that you are confused.

Oh well, thank goodness we didn't waste too much time until we got to: I don't believe in God.

No, I was answering your question as to what, in my understanding of Christian theology, would lead me to conclude that God has no purpose, and I told you.

You are instead stating that there is are legitimate understandings (presumably only one, right?) of Christian theology versus illegitimate understandings and you get to decide which are which. Is Graham's understanding legitimate? Or just an opinion? Are there any understandings of Christian theology that disagree with yours at any level that are still legitimate, or are they all just opinions that are pointless if posted to this thread? How close to yours do they have to be to be worth posting here? A Methodist's views? A Mormon's views? A Jew's views?

All understandings of theology involve people making judgements as to which of the many words present in the relevant texts and speeches to consider and what they mean. Christians interpret many of the dietary restrictions in the OT as no longer relevant to them, based on their understanding of the meanings in the NT. My understanding of the meaning of both the OT and NT is different from yours, but that does not invalidate it as an understanding of the theology any more than if I concluded that Christians have no understanding of the theology in the OT. They may not buy into it all, but they understand and reach conclusions from it. I simply buy into it even less.

You already acknowledged that it would be legitimate for a Hindu to post what they believed Shiva's purpose was, even though you don't believe in Shiva. Why not someone else who calls himself a Christian but views the Christian God's purpose from their own understanding of Christian theology differently from how you view it?

 

[jimbob]

Okey dokey. Here's my useful thoughts:

There were at least three gods in the old testament, but let's pretend for a minute they're all the same individual. This dude poofed people into existence because he was lonely (even though he was speaking to other gods in the first chapter of genesis) and placed them into the perfect garden. In this garden he placed two trees, the tree of eternal life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because reasons. He tells the peeps he placed there (two different stories about how he made them, BTW, but carry forward) not to touch them instead of like, using his magic god poof powers to move the trees elsewhere or whatever. Again, reasons.

Talking snakes shows up. No other creatures (other than humans, who aren't considered animals here, even though we are literally primates and thus, animals) can talk, but Eve is like What up talking snake? And snake says, eat this! And eve knows literally zero, girl was actually born yesterday, for reals, so she eats it. Eve is nice enough to share with her husband (who she didn't get to pick, BTW, so if she didn't like him, oh *********** well deal with it!)

And poof! God is pissed because he left the electrical socket unconvered and baby stuck his (her) finger in! Like, for an all-knowing diety, that was pretty stupid. He could have at least taken away the snakes talking privileges, like what the hell? Adam and eve had the deck stacked against them. Edenite's lives matter, bro!

So anyway, god boots them out of eden so he can live there alone with his trees, and makes the woman suffer in childbirth for listening to the snake (talk about a stupid punishment, that has nothing to do with her "crime"! And if god wants them to "go forth and multiply" wouldn't making labor easy and quick be a better idea?)

adam and eve have kids who apparently marry each other because where else could the people have come from, unless god had this kind of tree racket going on all over the planet and kept torturing people who know nothing for eating! Anyway, kids grow up, and one is a farmer. Farmer dude and his brother the rancher go to give god tribute for not killing them that year or whatever and god is like, your tribute is weak! To farmer dude!

Farmer dude gets bent out of shape because rancher dude is all Mr perfect, and also because god didn't give them any standards or anything to say what he wants, just makes him guess. So he hits his brother in the head with a rock. Of course nobody has ever died before, he couldn't have had any clue what would happen, but god (predictably) punishes him.

More time goes on, and farmer dude and his parents must have been serious about that "multiplying" biz because there's people everywhere! and god can't stand them! Like, okay, you created them in your image so maybe you need some inner love? Idk but he decided to kill everybody except one guy and that guy's family. Drowns them. Can you even picture that for a moment? Every person on earth drowned. Like, the ark must have been surrounded by bodies. Must have been like that scene from the first LOTR when they walk over bodies in a lake. That's just ********** up, seriously.

I have made it through chapter 6 of the first book of the bible. The rest is pretty much the same, the highlight at the end being a schizophrenic being killed by the romans and god getting all pissed at a curtain in the temple. Messed up stuff.

Going off this, being "god breathed" or whatever, I'd have to say god is a sick **** who needs serious therapy and maybe a shot of klonopin in the ass. His purpose seems to be to do as much bad **** to people as possible and then blame their great great great great great great x 3201 grandparents for it, which is also sick. Killing your own son is sick. Worshiping this sick **** is sick. The whole misogynistic, brainwashed, mindless, idiotic load of garbage is sick.

Youre welcome!

Nice summary, try reading that to yourself in the voice of the narrator to "the crazy nastyass honey badger" - link below.

https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg

As an aside, there are lot of stories from SE Asia which make more sense in the context of a neolithic mindset and which seem to be related to the garden of Eden.

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of death. The deity wanted to give the secret of eternal life to the first people but the snake tricked them to eat from the tree of death and stole eternal youth for itself, which is why it sheds its skin.

I am on a phone at the moment, so can't post better quotes, but these stories seem related and more internally consistent, so I'd guess that they are closer to the original.

I have also seen claims that (also from a culture that originated in SE Asia) one Polynesian creation myth had the creator taking a rib from the first man and using this to make the first woman who was thus called "Ivee" or "Iwi" which means "bone".

There are questions about whether this came from missionaries, but it was claimed that it was independent of this, and the detail of the name again suggests that it is closer to the original.

I don't think that there is any doubt about the independence of the Maori story about a creator breathing life into a clay model of a man.

 

[Magrat]

Nice summary, try reading that to yourself in the voice of the narrator to "the crazy nastyass honey badger" - link below.

https://youtu.be/4r7wHMg5Yjg

As an aside, there are lot of stories from SE Asia which make more sense in the context of a neolithic mindset and which seem to be related to the garden of Eden.

There were two trees: the tree of life and the tree of death. The deity wanted to give the secret of eternal life to the first people but the snake tricked them to eat from the tree of death and stole eternal youth for itself, which is why it sheds its skin.

I am on a phone at the moment, so can't post better quotes, but these stories seem related and more internally consistent, so I'd guess that they are closer to the original.

I have also seen claims that (also from a culture that originated in SE Asia) one Polynesian creation myth had the creator taking a rib from the first man and using this to make the first woman who was thus called "Ivee" or "Iwi" which means "bone".

There are questions about whether this came from missionaries, but it was claimed that it was independent of this, and the detail of the name again suggests that it is closer to the original.

I don't think that there is any doubt about the independence of the Maori story about a creator breathing life into a clay model of a man.

And Jesus was based on numerous stories of the god who dies and comes back to life.

I actually wrote that how I talk so, maybe I speak like a nastyass honey badger! Lol

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I was answering your question as to what, in my understanding of Christian theology, would lead me to conclude that God has no purpose, and I told you.

You are instead stating that there is are legitimate understandings (presumably only one, right?) of Christian theology versus illegitimate understandings and you get to decide which are which. Is Graham's understanding legitimate? Or just an opinion? Are there any understandings of Christian theology that disagree with yours at any level that are still legitimate, or are they all just opinions that are pointless if posted to this thread? How close to yours do they have to be to be worth posting here? A Methodist's views? A Mormon's views? A Jew's views?

You already acknowledged that it would be legitimate for a Hindu to post what they believed Shiva's purpose was, even though you don't believe in Shiva. Why not someone else who calls himself a Christian but views the Christian God's purpose from their own understanding of Christian theology differently from how you view it?

There is "Christian theology," which one endeavors to have an "understanding" of, and "opinions regarding Christian Theology" which are quite definitely not the same thing.

Let me make this simple:

I understand the Rule of Cricket.
I think the Rules of Cricket are silly.
My subjective opinion regarding the Rules of Cricket is not part of my objective understanding of what the Rules are.

Savvy?

 

[The Big Dog]

The scope of the thread has been explicitly indicated as the Abrahamic god. Both the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon are considered scripture dealing with the Abrahamic god. They are thus expressly in scope. Each describes a vastly different idea of the Abrahamic god's purpose. Please give your opinion of those expressions of purpose.

I do not have a solid objective understanding of the Book of Mormon, so I do not have a subjective opinion that I would presume to share with the avid readers of this thread.

I would, however, be interested if someone with more knowledge viz Mormon would share the objective facts of the Mormon Theology, or ISlamic too, never having read the Koran.

 

[Magrat]

There is "Christian theology," which one endeavors to have an "understanding" of, and "opinions regarding Christian Theology" which are quite definitely not the same thing.

Let me make this simple:

I understand the Rule of Cricket.
I think the Rules of Cricket are silly.
My subjective opinion regarding the Rules of Cricket is not part of my objective understanding of what the Rules are.

Savvy?

There is more than one christian theology, and Christians kill each other over them. Not understandings of theology, the theology itself. Like, was Jesus man, god, or both? Kill each other!

When you said savvy at the end of your post my brain read it in Jack Sparrow's voice.

 

[bytewizard]

adam and eve have kids who apparently marry each other because where else could the people have come from, unless god had this kind of tree racket going on all over the planet and kept torturing people who know nothing for eating!

Adam and Eve had 2 sons, one son(Cain) killed the other, then married and built a "city" for two.

Cain must have married his mother, Eve, who then promptly left Adam for her murdering son.

 

[jimbob]

And Jesus was based on numerous stories of the god who dies and comes back to life.

I actually wrote that how I talk so, maybe I speak like a nastyass honey badger! Lol

I imagine you with a more southern accent than "Nathan's" one in the YouTube video that I linked to, which sounds to me to be someone playing up a stereotypical New York city accent.

It's worth watching, but isn't *exactly* David Attenborough.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not have a solid objective understanding of [Mormonism or Islam].

So when it comes to discussing the purposes attributed to the Abrahamic god, you have a somewhat limited understanding? Is that a fair assessment?

 

[Giordano]

There is "Christian theology," which one endeavors to have an "understanding" of, and "opinions regarding Christian Theology" which are quite definitely not the same thing.

Let me make this simple:

I understand the Rule of Cricket. I think the Rules of Cricket are silly. My subjective opinion regarding the Rules of Cricket is not part of my objective understanding of what the Rules are.
Savvy?

Absolutely! One can, from one's understanding of the Rules of Cricket, form an opinion as how one interprets the Rules of Cricket (e.g. silly).

In just the same way, one can understand the Christian theology, and from that understanding of it, form an opinion as to how one interprets this theology (i.e. what is the purpose of the Christian God- none).

Step back and think about it: you are really stating (without realizing it) that your understanding of Christian theology is not an opinion at all but a truth, whereas people who disagree with your understanding have only an opinion, not a true understanding. Or if you do accept that your view of the purpose of God is your opinion formed from your understanding of the theology, then you must also recognize it is legitimate for other people who have also studied the theology to form their own opinions, even if they are different from yours.

I will give you an example:
Some people read Christian sources/theology and reach the opinion that only whole body immersion is acceptable for baptism.
Other people read the same Christian sources/theology and reach the opinion that only partial immersion is sufficient for baptism.
Some people (e.g.Quakers) read the same Christian sources/theology and reach the opinion that no immersion/baptism is required to be saved.

Each views the other wrong, but it would be legitimate and relevant to allow discussion of all in a discussion of which form of baptism is important for salvation, and silly to consider only some views as opinions whereas other views are considered legitimate understandings.

 

[Magrat]

Adam and Eve had 2 sons, one son(Cain) killed the other, then married and built a "city" for two.

Cain must have married his mother, Eve, who then promptly left Adam for her murdering son.

The bible mentions another son, Seth so who even knows?

I imagine you with a more southern accent than "Nathan's" one in the YouTube video that I linked to, which sounds to me to be someone playing up a stereotypical New York city accent.

It's worth watching, but isn't *exactly* David Attenborough.

Actually I'm from NY, I have a watered down Brooklyn accent via my dad lol

 

[The Big Dog]

So when it comes to discussing the purposes attributed to the Abrahamic god, you have a somewhat limited understanding? Is that a fair assessment?

That is not exactly what I said, now is it.

But no, I certainly do not hold myself out as expert.

 

[The Big Dog]

Absolutely! One can, from one's understanding of the Rules of Cricket, form an opinion as how one interprets the Rules of Cricket (e.g. silly).

.

No... I am not "interpreting" the Rules, I am declaring them silly.

 

[JayUtah]

That is not exactly what I said, now is it.

I didn't say it was, now did I? Instead I asked if what I had said was a fair assessment of your belief.

But no, I certainly do not hold myself out as expert.

I didn't ask if you were an expert. I asked if you agreed that your understanding is limited when it comes to attributing purposes to the Abrahamic god. You seem very reluctant to answer the questions that were asked without wanting to reword them first, but we'll forgive you. After all, you seem to be standing alone on these questions so some defensiveness is excusable. "Limited understanding" and "not an expert" are synonymous enough for us to proceed.

Since your understanding of Abrahamic theology is limited, may we conclude that your subjective belief in Christianity is not a fully informed belief? We can certainly infer that you did not survey Mormonism or Islam. I surmise you also did not survey Judaism, except perhaps insofar as principles of Jewish belief are often taught to Christians. Is it fair to say you made a subjective decision to adhere to Christianity without fully informing yourself of the objective principles of its siblings in the Abrahamic tradition?