The Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

We're here because of sheer biology. The whole intercourse, conception, development, and birth process is all science. You choose to see significance in places that I see as entirely natural and self-perpetuating. It's science, dude.

You said this...

My point exactly. Would your god still exist after all of its believers died? Or would it die along with their belief in it? If your god is a distinct, independent entity, it would be forced to reveal itself or be forced to forfeit our world. How else does it replenish its stock of believers?

How else does it replenish? You mean by what natural means? Yes, we are here because of biology, however, biology that we ourselves had no control over for ourselves.

You had no control over your parents decision to....have intercourse. You had no control over your conception or the biological processes that created you. Biology is just a little bit of the big picture. Suppose your parents had decided that week to not have intercourse, or one week earlier or one week later, you would not be here or you might be someone else. Think about how little control you had over your biological existence.

So when you say "would God still exist", yes. God would, because we have no control over God's existence. Just like you had no control over your existence. But you are here, as you are, so then why is it so hard to believe that the supernatural exists also. If you had no control over the natural existence of you, then why do you think the supernatural can't exist? God is, just like you are.

Biology, intercourse, conception, we have no control over what made us to begin with. You might have control over deciding the next generation, but they don't. And the conditions have to be right for that next generation to come along. Just like the conditions had to be right for your conception, but it all hinged on one little thing, your parents actually having intercourse. And you didn't control their conceptions or lives, but they existed for you to exist.

And if we go back to the first humans, which I believe God made, they had no control over the conditions of their existence either. Even if you say they were evolved, no one in the chain had any control over the previous generation. What makes the conditions right?

Biology? No. Evolution? No. The Big Bang? No, The Big Bang had no control over whether a person would choose to have sex, it might dictate that they would want to, but not that they would.

Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.

Maybe it's reflection. It's difficult because consciousness(or our limited definition of) has nothing to do with it. The simple act of observing and recording causes matter and reality to behave differently. For example light behaves as a waveform when unobserved. But when it is observed it behaves as a particle. The strange thing is a human doesn't have to observe. It could be just a video camera. The act of recording information caused it to behave like a particle regardless if the recorder was "self aware". This makes me connect the dots to how a quantum computer works. Perhaps god is everything and we are processors of information within the construct.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.

So that's it. We kill all the believers and let God either come out to play or find some other world to pick on.

Nah, just kidding. But at that point, it would be proven. God must either reveal his hand or let us go.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.

So that's it. We kill all the believers and let God either come out to play or find some other world to pick on.

Nah, just kidding. But at that point, it would be proven. God must either reveal his hand or let us go.

How do you think God isn't proven to me?

That's a nice smile, and I got the joke. No harm, no foul. But what is the difference in you and I, we are both humans with human intelligence, so how is it your understanding is so vastly different than mine, and yet we both have the exact same makeup and chromosome structure?

I don't think for me you could say it is indoctrination because I didn't grow up in a consistently religious house. in fact, the opposite of religion was most prevalent. So the seeking came by me, and nothing my parents put into me. But what is the difference in people who have grown up religious and turn away, than from atheists who were always atheists to become believers?

It's not in our biology, so something else is going on and it's not always indoctrination.

reply to post by WarminIndy

That's a nice smile, and I got the joke. No harm, no foul. But what is the difference in you and I, we are both humans with human intelligence, so how is it your understanding is so vastly different than mine, and yet we both have the exact same makeup and chromosome structure?

We love and fear different things.

reply to post by charles1952



"You shall not kill" is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew it is "you shall not murder". There is a huge difference between killing and murdering, that difference is the intent.

That being said I am in agreement with the OP.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Does God need people in order for Him to exist? No, and certainly the Big Bang didn't need people for it to have happened either.

So that's it. We kill all the believers and let God either come out to play or find some other world to pick on.

Nah, just kidding. But at that point, it would be proven. God must either reveal his hand or let us go.

He's already revealed his hand, you're just too blind to see it. In your zeal to bite the hand that feeds you, you do not recognize whose hand that is you're biting.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

He's already revealed his hand, you're just too blind to see it. In your zeal to bite the hand that feeds you, you do not recognize whose hand that is you're biting.

Oh. So in your eyes, I'm a rabid dog.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

That's a nice smile, and I got the joke. No harm, no foul. But what is the difference in you and I, we are both humans with human intelligence, so how is it your understanding is so vastly different than mine, and yet we both have the exact same makeup and chromosome structure?

We love and fear different things.

Yes, but why? What do we love and fear that is so different?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Yes, but why? What do we love and fear that is so different?

I don't know you, so I can't really say.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Yes, but why? What do we love and fear that is so different?

I don't know you, so I can't really say.

And that's a fair enough statement.

I don't fear the Reaper, as in what the Blue Oyster Cult said.

charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing

charles1952
I'm not trying to be mushy, but I feel a special connection to you. I'm really grateful for the time you took with your answer. I know I agree with you in some areas. Forgive me for jumping around.

Jumping around in the muddle of the abstract is fine; because there are hidden truths there exposed (even if not understood by others; its not a club per se just RECOGNITION of a similar like minded spirit in communication with).

charles1952
Inner v. Outer Truth.
I think you've got this one down pretty well. I see an entire Universe of truth available to us. Some we don't know, and some, we may have but don't understand or can't make use of. Will you accept Inner Truth to be the truth we've recognized, accepted, and made a part of our very being? That would include the truth we've discovered for ourselves, such as the truth of the beauty of some poetry, music, or emotion.

In this time period the Bible may seem to be just a collection of irrelevant euphamisms applied to primitive peoples from times past; for some reason it continues to resonate for many today. If you are living well and satisfied with your life I would say your 'inner truth' is working for you as an individual within a common group that has similar belief systems. This is not a contradiction. You have identified (your individuality) as belonging to a larger belief form greater in number (there is greater power in that to change paradigm architypes). Aside from belief systems of course you will explore whatever resonates to your soul, poetry, music etc; thats your individuality defining itself).

charles
Bible Copyrights.
Some versions of the Bible are copyrighted and some are not. A very quick check showed me that the
Bible in Basic English, King James Version, World English Bible, American Standard (1901), and the NET Bible were all free of copyright, and I'm sure there are others. One that particularly impressed me is the Catholic Public Domain Version. I'm impressed, not by the translation as I haven't read it, but by the translator's statement in putting it in the public domain. He made a point of saying that God's Word shouldn't be copyright. It's a fascinating statement, you'll find it here:
www.sacredbible.org...

I never would have thought that versions of bible could be of or in the free domain. Thanks for the link. I have 5 versions of the Bible of different organizations and they seem (of course tailored to the constituants they seek).

charles
On the other hand, putting together a new translation can take years of work, and hundreds of translators. They deserve to be paid. I hope some reasonable compromise can be found.

If I were to propose a new epistle (just a book within the BOOK) I wouldnt expect payment either, but that would just be a dream; because someone is in charge ulitimately of editing it and allowing its admission (even as an addendum). It would have to bound as an entirely different missive.

charles1952
Christian persecution.
I found an interesting BBC article discussing the subject. It may not be the sort of thing most people know about.
Basically, the article recounts the furious persecution under Nero (64 A.D.), sporadic persecution for the next hundred years, then back to serious persecution from about 150 A.D. to Constantine's declaration that Christianity was legal. As you'll recall, Christianity wasn't declared the official religion until 380 A.D., well after Constantine was dead. The Council that he called, that of Nicea, didn't even address the question of what books were in the Bible.

64 AD was the time period for that ramp up of persecution. Ive always been curious what the Jews were up to then, the wealthy/or pious ones (not exactly french resistance fighters of the age). More of a wait and see what the Romans do. Constantine was interesting; he declared Christianity as 'legal' but he hid pagan symbols all over Constantinople in the relief forms of governmental buildings, statues; to appease those that would/might (as pagan upholders of that tradition) riot against him (a very wise politian).

charles1952
Confession and Blackmail.
You say it happens regularly and is a basis for Catholic power. I hate to be blunt, but I don't believe it. The Seal of the Confessional is absolute, and breaking it is grounds for immediate, well, everything bad that you can imagine happening to a priest and a Catholic.

I was speaking of the RCC during the ages of 1600-1900 when it really mattered. I do not believe in that seal of the confessional for one reason; it really only holds within a court of civil judicial law. In the court of God; a priest will say/think this "Only I have the devination to speak for or be the direct conduit to God; you confessioner do not have that ability or resource". Nostradamous speaks about this; he spoke to 'higher beings from the future through his Skrying' and was always worried about the Catholic Church finding this out; hense the way he wrote his prophesies as puzzles. VaVinci's notations were written down backwards for the same reason.

charles1952
The Beauty of the Bible.
I agree with you, there is much beauty and poetry there. I believe it also reports events and words which have made a profound difference to the world. Purpose of the Bible.
I think I agree with you here. I do have a problem, therefore, with just discarding the parts that don't resonate. I suspect they will later, but they're there for a purpose.

Have you not read a book 20 years ago (saved it) then re-read it last month? not only did you keep it to read again for a reason it will say or have a meaning completely different to you now; as you have gained more insight the years prior.

charles
The Corruption of Jesus' Religion.
I'm having trouble understanding the idea that we know the kind of religion Jesus intended, but the people He spoke to, lived with, didn't. If He was founding a religion (which I think He was), I'd think His first step was to make sure that His followers got it right. You believe that would have only happened had he written everything down. A Christian might say that He did, through the writers inspired by the Holy Spirit. He did say:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. John 14:26

I dont know charles, Mohammed and Ziddarhartha took a different route to explaining their tenents (left pamplets?) and there is no problem with understanding specifically their intentions as to the idea forms of Buddhism and Islam. I dont think Paul got it right; and I do believe that as so many important gnostic texts were left out of the bible, written during the time of Christ floating about and were discarded as heritical or confusing; I have a problem (of course they werent re-discovered until 1947?? but then again there is the NagHammati Library existing now and thats at least something the Essenses of Qumran left us. You havent left anything out and its been a pleasure.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

Thank you, it is a pleasure to be able to talk with someone on these topics, instead of the shrill confrontation which so often occurs.

I'd like to add some information to the subject of the Seal of the Confessional. It is governed by Church law, also known as Canon law. It has been around from very early times. Here's what the law said in 1215 A.D.:

Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:


"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"

— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"

en.wikipedia.org...

That was not the first or the last condemnation of breaking the seal, but it is certainly dramatic. Here is the current law:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

www.vatican.va...


That latae sententiae business means no trial or hearing is needed. As soon as the act is done, he is excommunicated, out of the Church, and the only way to get back in is by going through the Pope or his representative. (And there's only a couple of those, all in the Vatican.) This is serious stuff, and always has been.

I really appreciate your work.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

Thank you, it is a pleasure to be able to talk with someone on these topics, instead of the shrill confrontation which so often occurs.

I'd like to add some information to the subject of the Seal of the Confessional. It is governed by Church law, also known as Canon law. It has been around from very early times. Here's what the law said in 1215 A.D.:

Canon 21 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), binding on the whole church, laid down the obligation of secrecy in the following words:


"Let the priest absolutely beware that he does not by word or sign or by any manner whatever in any way betray the sinner: but if he should happen to need wiser counsel let him cautiously seek the same without any mention of person. For whoever shall dare to reveal a sin disclosed to him in the tribunal of penance we decree that he shall be not only deposed from the priestly office but that he shall also be sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance"

— Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles" at the year 1215; Mansi or Harduin, "Coll. conciliorum"

en.wikipedia.org...

That was not the first or the last condemnation of breaking the seal, but it is certainly dramatic. Here is the current law:

Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.

Can. 1389 §1. A person who abuses an ecclesiastical power or function is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or omission, not excluding privation of office, unless a law or precept has already established the penalty for this abuse.

www.vatican.va...


That latae sententiae business means no trial or hearing is needed. As soon as the act is done, he is excommunicated, out of the Church, and the only way to get back in is by going through the Pope or his representative. (And there's only a couple of those, all in the Vatican.) This is serious stuff, and always has been.

I really appreciate your work.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Im going to answer this post tomorrow Charles; but I have to make a comment/address something Ive noticed: regarding the "JUMPERS"; 'those of you' that absconded this thread and used it to formulate or argue opinion that has nothing to do with the OP and seems personalized or an ordained/organized usership FREE-FOR-ALL RAVE PARTY (YOUR IDEA CHARLES BECAME THEIRS AS YOU ACTUALLY HAD THE VERVE/METTLE TO POST IT). Here is an idea; 'jumpers' address yourselves to the OP statement; this person is too kind to say to you "STOP WITH YOUR PERSONAL SNIPING/BICKERING AT EACH OTHER", its distracting and not answering OP questions (that ususally the point). Create your own thread and DEFEND IT not using someone elses to formulate LAME CONTENT unworthy of being read. Ive said it before, if someone has 20,000 posts in one year its because they consist of: "What" "Why did you say that" or "Could you explain yourself" OR THIS: "MY GOD JIM!! I AM A DOCTOR NOT AN AMBASSADOR DELIVERER OF CONCISE PERTINANT RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE TO SUBJECT QUESTION!" StarTrek potencial dialoge in a new film.

Take it to ATS the sometimes working or not u2u. FIX THAT PROBLEM AND THE ONE OF APPLYING LINKS THAT WORK OR AN AVATAR application...time better spent than using 'death by nail clippers' upon each other.

SyphonNexus
Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?

Self worship and inso being are not themselves perfect (what they seek is self admonition).

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Dear vethumanbeing,

Thanks for the kick in the pants. You point out a problem which I haven't found a solution for. You're right, the original topic was whether God was completely worthless, or not. It assumed the existence of God, because Cogito, Ergo Sum wouldn't go around criticizing Someone who didn't exist. But yet, we've found ourselves on various by-ways, including whether God exists. And, as you point out, some people on this path with me are decidedly hostile.

I have noticed one poster in particular, there may be others, who tries to swing conversations to the question of the existence of God. I've come to believe that's because he has his talking points ready and feels comfortable repeating them over and over.

My problem is that there are periods of time when I'm not on ATS, often 12 hours, sometimes more. By the time I returned to this thread it's gone to mush. In all fairness, I must point out that this is rare. I can't think of another thread, which I have started, that got this silly. I've been blessed by having serious posters discuss their ideas in a respectful manner. What happened here? I can only guess.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by SyphonNexus

Dear SyphonNexus,

Why do perfect beings need the worship of imperfect beings?

You have one response, may I offer another?

The problem is in the use of the word "need." God doesn't, of course, He doesn't need anything.

Here are some examples. A child has a bowl of cereal in front of him, but reaches over, tears a piece off the box, and starts eating it. The parent says "Hey! Don't do that, it's not good for you. Eat the cereal." No one thinks the Mother needs to have the child eat cereal, she wants him to avoid eating the wrong things and eat the good instead. It's for the child's benefit, not hers.

Several years later, about 10 p.m., the child says to the Mother "I've got a paper due in the morning. It'll take me about two hours. I think I'll go over to Bill's and party tonight." I would expect the Mother to say, "No, you don't. You're going to sit here and finish that paper." It's not said because the Mother needs to control the kid's movements, or make him a slave. She has a better perspective of what the results will be if he goes to the party. She wants goodness for the child.

So it is with God. He doesn't "need" people to pray, or follow Him. It's not for His benefit, it's for ours. He knows it will be better for us to align ourselves with Him than with the Deceiver. He love us and wants what's best for us. But with all that, He still leaves the choice to us. He loves us too much to make us slaves.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles1952

God cannot be a bumbling idiot if He made us so complex that we can't even post in ATS without complexity. That's why God is not bumbling or an idiot.

I hope that helps some. I'm probably guilty of diverting the threads, but I think if you could read my posts, that they are leading back to the OP. Because God is in control, God is not a bumbling idiot.

Sorry for thread derailing, I will watch in the future. But I don't want people to think I am hostile, certainly that is not my intent. If it comes across that way, I apologize.

And that makes God not a bumbling idiot, because we are able to still look at God with eyes of wonder because of His creation, even us.