Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

acbytesla said:
Is it just me?

But it seems to me that the Christian story if God makes him/her/it to be stupid and insecure.

IMV, if there is a god that created the universe, this being would be smart and secure in his/her self.

After all, this being reportedly created the entire universe. That's a billion trillion stars and probably 5 times that many planets surrounding each star. Almost 9 million species on earth with a few hundreds of one species to trillions of another. That's pretty badass if you ask me.

Yet the Christian bible is filled with commands that we praise and worship this being. Given everything this being has supposedly done, do you really think this badass being would want and need that from one of those species?

Then take a look at the story of Jesus. God created the earth by simply saying it. Yet to forgive man for not praising him enough, he impregnated a jewish woman and transformed himself into the child of that woman so that child could be tortured and killed?

Even the dumbest person would simply forgive man instead of going through such a farcical scheme.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes. The "to forgive man for not praising him enough.." part is obviously a wilful misinterpretation on your part.

Try to say it in a way a Christian would at least recognize the story. God has to do more than just 'forgive'. Humankind is supposed to have fallen too far into sin for us to redeem ourselves.

We can't pay the price and God can't change the fact that a price has to be paid. So God pays the price.

You have to think about that concept "paying the price". It has to cost God something to redeem mankind.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Yes. The "to forgive man for not praising him enough.." part is obviously a wilful misinterpretation on your part.

Try to say it in a way a Christian would at least recognize the story. Humankind is supposed to have fallen too far into sin for us to redeem ourselves.

We can't pay the price and God can't change the fact that a price has to be paid. So God pays the price.

You have to think about that concept "paying the price". It has to cost God something to redeem mankind.
Click to expand...

The problem I had with this is "to whom is the price being paid for our redemption?"

If we accept that Yahweh is all-powerful, then he simply needs to forgive. He's got the power and simply needs to do it and can do so without the farce of paying the price owed to himself himself. It's the equivalent of having your kids owe you $10 for ice cream, but instead of making the 5 year olds come up with the cash, you take the money out of your own right pocket, transfer it to your left pocket and say the debt is now paid.

And if there is some higher force that is requiring that a price be paid and Yahweh decides that, "Rather than my flawed creation pay it I will, because otherwise this redemption can't happen" it would imply rather strongly that Yahweh is not all powerful.
 
There is one school of thought (albeit an obscure one) that God, being omnipresent in everything (pantheism or panentheism), possesses no self-awareness. At all. That he couldn't even conceive of himself as an entity and reflect upon his own actions. And some take it further to explain the incarnation of Christ as God's stab at understanding humanity by becoming human, that being the first time God actually understood humans. Hence the behavior change between Old and New Testaments.



Ridiculous, of course, but it makes a good story. I could see it as a miniseries on Netflix.
 
This is mostly because originally, the Hebrew god was only a god of a very small slice of the sky. He's pretty clearly derived from one of the Gods of the Canaanite religion. The Canaanites split up and all took a slightly different God as there chief God. Most were not so petty as Jahweh and only demanded to be the chief god while letting their followers worship the rest too. Not so much with El/Jahweh.

Anyrate, there's an old heresy that pops up several times in first 1000 years after christ that makes a lot more sense than the orthodoxy. There are two gods, the evil demi-urge of the old testament that created the physical universe in order to trap human souls and the true god who created the spiritual world and the true creator. That god is the god of the new testament who sent Jesus to let us all know who to escape. I suppose that god also created the Demi-urge for reasons.

I know a few progressive Christians who explain away all the petty cruelty as it being metaphor necessary to communicate with an iron age culture but now we are so much better educated that we can understand the true or at least closer to true nature of God. Meh, its a bunch of post hoc rationalization if you as me. They want God but they don't want a nasty, petty, and cruel God as described in the old testament and revelation.
 
Last edited:
Moreover, the idea is that the nature of good, evil, sin and its consequences are all unalterable facts of reality. God can't make something that is evil good, and can't make something that is good evil and this does not imply that there is an even more powerful being who could do this.
 
Robin said:
I don't think they are talking about a monetary exchange.
Click to expand...
I don't think that really matters, though. The price to be paid must be to someone's benefit. If God is omni-this-and-that, then isn't he paying himself? We seem to have a god that makes all the rules and then claims he's stuck with them. I can do everything except...oh not that, that's impossible for reasons I can't explain. So he makes a grand gesture, a reset, and if it were true it would be grand indeed, a gift of value even if you can't quite understand why it must be given. But then the religions that tell the tale spoil it all by saying if we don't do the right rituals and believe the right doctrines and say thanks in the specified way then it won't stick and he'll roast us anyway.
 
Robin said:
I don't think they are talking about a monetary exchange.
Click to expand...

True, it's even stupider.

Somehow, killing a sheep makes everything ok.

So instead of killing a sheep, God let himself get killed, so no one has to kill any more sheep.
 
Venom said:
That is the biggest problem with the Judeo-Christian God, or any god who judges humans. Why does he demand worship and praise? It's so grossly anthropomorphic and many more casual churchgoers don't say it out loud. But I know they're thinking it.
Click to expand...

Because deep down, those who believe in God are simply seeking for a father figure. A father figure not just to love, but to feel that they can love him back. So the praising, is a way to feel that their God can feel loved by them.

I remember Stephen Colbert talking about why he believes in God, and he said something about feeling so grateful and happy to be alive, that he just needs to give back that love and gratitude toward something. That's why he needs to believe that there's a God, so that he can feel that there's someone responsible for this Universe to whom he can say "thank you". It's a very sweet thought if you think about it, whether you're a theist or an atheist.

Believers in God do not believe out of logic. No amount of rational dissection of why the Bible makes no sense (And there's plenty of nonsensical stuff there to dissect) is gonna do anything to a believer's faith, because their faith is not based on logic, but rather, on emotion.
 
bruto said:
Since as I recall a theist means more or less a person who believes in a personal god with whom one can deal, it's pretty much a given that such a god will be anthropomorphized. Right from the start, a personal god depends on the limitation of human imagination, an unlikely attribute for an actual god.

I do have to dispute one thing. Coveting is not wanting things like what your neighbor has. It's wanting the very things he has, at his expense. When you covet your neighbor's wife, you're not after her sister.
Click to expand...

What about his ox? It is still a thought crime.
 
ahhell said:
T
I know a few progressive Christians who explain away all the petty cruelty as it being metaphor necessary to communicate with an iron age culture but now we are so much better educated that we can understand the true or at least closer to true nature of God. Meh, its a bunch of post hoc rationalization if you as me. They want God but they don't want a nasty, petty, and cruel God as described in the old testament and revelation.
Click to expand...
No they don't. I certainly didn't. My deconversion started when I decided to read the bible from the beginning. It was complete by the time I finished Judges or maybe it was Kings. The church I went to focused pretty much everything in the New Testament. We were never encouraged to read more than a few verses in the Old Testament and after reading it I know why.

How does one read the stories of Abraham and Isaac or Jeptha or the Godly man who didn't want his male guest raped instead sent out his concubine so she could be raped and the next day that godly man cut her up into 12 pieces and still think this is the "good book"?

All, I heard from my pastor and other Christians were awful rationalizations or outright lies about what the scripture said.
 
bruto said:
Since as I recall a theist means more or less a person who believes in a personal god with whom one can deal, it's pretty much a given that such a god will be anthropomorphized. Right from the start, a personal god depends on the limitation of human imagination, an unlikely attribute for an actual god.

I do have to dispute one thing. Coveting is not wanting things like what your neighbor has. It's wanting the very things he has, at his expense. When you covet your neighbor's wife, you're not after her sister.
Click to expand...

Even if you want the very thing he has, it doesn't have to be at his expense. If my neighbour has such a magnificent donkey that God had to specifically give a commandment about it, I can offer him a fair price, or offer him some favour, or really whatever. And the area being on a major trade route, plus having been vassalized by the very commercial-minded Egypt before, they would have known that very well.

But it's more stupid than that.

Coins appear very late in human history. At the time Exodus is supposed to have happened, everything worked on barter. And to have that work at all, yeah, I have to want specifically that fine literate servant (which at the time was synonymous with slave) that you have, and you have to want, say, this young and strong ox that I have. Otherwise there's no reason to make that exchange.

There may be even be reasons for me wanting specifically THAT slave, not just any slave. Trivial example, maybe I want to buy my brother from slavery. Or maybe I want specifically THAT house because it used to be my parents' house, before they had to sell it to pay their debts. Etc.

Fast forward to the modern world -- because, remember, God is supposed to have given rules for all eternity, not just until next election -- and it becomes even more stupid. People are willing to pay an imperial buttload of money for stuff that's not fungible. E.g., specifically the jacket that some singer wore on stage. Or as a less frivolous example, a museum may be interested in specifically the only surviving manuscript of the Gospel Of Judas, not just any random old manuscript.

At any rate, I get why complete idiots ever since the beginning written history tried to save us from crime by making saying people should stop wanting stuff. It's one of those ideas that start to seem bleedingly obvious around room temperature IQ. But in the real world, the notion that if you want a specific item, it leads to crime, is not very tenable.
 
Robin said:
Moreover, the idea is that the nature of good, evil, sin and its consequences are all unalterable facts of reality. God can't make something that is evil good, and can't make something that is good evil and this does not imply that there is an even more powerful being who could do this.
Click to expand...

Just an FYI, but we have specific examples in the Bible of God doing exactly this. The canonical being how he hardened Pharaoh's heart to make sure he wouldn't let the Israelites leave.

Regardless, as soon as you use the word "can't", you've denied omnipotence.
 
Robin said:
Yes. The "to forgive man for not praising him enough.." part is obviously a wilful misinterpretation on your part.

Try to say it in a way a Christian would at least recognize the story. God has to do more than just 'forgive'. Humankind is supposed to have fallen too far into sin for us to redeem ourselves.

We can't pay the price and God can't change the fact that a price has to be paid. So God pays the price.

You have to think about that concept "paying the price". It has to cost God something to redeem mankind.
Click to expand...

Why?

God is omnipotent, he can do whatever he wants.

You could say he chooses to require a cost for redemption, but he's not beholden to it.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Because deep down, those who believe in God are simply seeking for a father figure. A father figure not just to love, but to feel that they can love him back. So the praising, is a way to feel that their God can feel loved by them.

I remember Stephen Colbert talking about why he believes in God, and he said something about feeling so grateful and happy to be alive, that he just needs to give back that love and gratitude toward something. That's why he needs to believe that there's a God, so that he can feel that there's someone responsible for this Universe to whom he can say "thank you". It's a very sweet thought if you think about it, whether you're a theist or an atheist.

Believers in God do not believe out of logic. No amount of rational dissection of why the Bible makes no sense (And there's plenty of nonsensical stuff there to dissect) is gonna do anything to a believer's faith, because their faith is not based on logic, but rather, on emotion.
Click to expand...


Of course they don't. It's mostly out of indoctrination. Get them while they are young. You're supposed to believe. It is the cultural thing to do. Mom, Dad, friends, neighbors etc say this is true.

Christianity preaches against critical thinking and applying the standards we apply to everything else.

The disciple Thomas is basically mocked for wanting proof.

Paul warns us not to think in Second Corinthians 10-5 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ".

Hebrews 11 describes faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Luke says Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

In other words, this is a mass of special pleading. It is an appeal for ignorance. Do not look at the man behind the curtain. There is no other claim that we use faith to support. None. If we have a good reason to believe something we give the reason. We don't say it is faith.

Stephen Colbert is one of my favorite people on the planet. But that doesn't make the religion any less nonsensical. This man was an altar boy for 11 years. This guy still can recite mass in latin. It was a good experience for him. But it is no less an indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
What about his ox? It is still a thought crime.
Click to expand...
True, coveting is a thought crime, but is there a point to pointing this out? So, essentially, is honoring your parents. My point above was not to suggest that it's not, or to argue whether it's a good or a bad commandment, but only to argue about what is meant by coveting - that it is not wanting to be on a par with one's neighbor, but to take what is his.

The idea that God can't make good evil or evil good sounds almost reasonable at first, but it falters when you consider, for example, the ten commandments, and the myriad of other laws that the Bible seems to consider defining good and evil. Must we still fear the wrath of god if we mix the wrong fabrics in our clothes? Besides, all the choices, right back to the first atom, are God's, and he's supposed to know everything about everything. If he did not create us sinning creatures on purpose, he's an inept demiurge.
 
bruto said:
True, coveting is a thought crime, but is there a point to pointing this out? So, essentially, is honoring your parents. My point above was not to suggest that it's not, or to argue whether it's a good or a bad commandment, but only to argue about what is meant by coveting - that it is not wanting to be on a par with one's neighbor, but to take what is his.

The idea that God can't make good evil or evil good sounds almost reasonable at first, but it falters when you consider, for example, the ten commandments, and the myriad of other laws that the Bible seems to consider defining good and evil. Must we still fear the wrath of god if we mix the wrong fabrics in our clothes? Besides, all the choices, right back to the first atom, are God's, and he's supposed to know everything about everything. If he did not create us sinning creatures on purpose, he's an inept demiurge.
Click to expand...

That's just it. The whole thing breaks down with just a small amount of critical thought. One has to twist logic into knots to make sense of it and it still doesn't. The commandment not to covet is not only a thought crime, it is amazingly offensive to women as it put's one's wife on par with an ox.

There are maybe 3 perhaps 4 of the commandments that makes sense and even those weren't something new. The rest of the laws are either immoral or make little sense today and are completely ignored except by Orthodox Jews.
 
acbytesla said:
Of course they don't. It's mostly out of indoctrination. Get them while they are young. You're supposed to believe. It is the cultural thing to do. Mom, Dad, friends, neighbors etc say this is true.

Christianity preaches against critical thinking and applying the standards we apply to everything else.

The disciple Thomas is basically mocked for wanting proof.

Paul warns us not to think in Second Corinthians 10-5 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ".

Hebrews 11 describes faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Luke says Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

In other words, this is a mass of special pleading. It is an appeal for ignorance. Do not look at the man behind the curtain. There is no other claim that we use faith to support. None. If we have a good reason to believe something we give the reason. We don't say it is faith.

Stephen Colbert is one of my favorite people on the planet. But that doesn't make the religion any less nonsensical. This man was an altar boy for 11 years. This guy still can recite mass in latin. It was a good experience for him. But it is no less an indoctrination.
Click to expand...

For the record, I've ever argued against that. I've never claimed that religion is not nonsensical.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
For the record, I've ever argued against that. I've never claimed that religion is not nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I get it.

I pretty much agree with you. You said it. It's not logic. It can't be as it makes no sense. It's all dependent on emotions and the need to belong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom