Why do some modern intelligent minds accept Yahweh?

[marco]

The Old Testament God is the stuff of nightmares, creating and destroying, commanding and punishing, crazy with jealousy and obsessive about being "loved."

It seems obvious that Yahweh is born of primitive imagining. Yet many intelligent people do accept he is a real being. Why? Some like G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis have changed sides and embraced Christianity with both hands, presumably admiring the unlovable OT God. What makes people do this?

Love seems out of the question, so is it fear?

[bluethread]

The honest rationalist will admit that the universe is not absolutely rational, and that is where the honest rationalist parts ways with his rationalism to presume a rational force behind the universe. That is not because it is rational, but because without such a rational force, one is left with nihilism, which undermines rationalism.

That's fair enough. One deduces that the reason we employ is a fraction of a larger reason, which in turn is a fraction of a larger reason.... This gives us a view of our very modest place in the universe but it does not give us Yahweh.

What is the nature of the largest reason, or is there one?

[marco]

What is the nature of the largest reason, or is there one?

There is way of thinking in human terms. Anselm and Aquinas thought back in a line and deduced that something much have started it off, since an infinite regression makes no sense.

Today we have discovered that many things make no sense but they are; in an infinite series there need be no beginning and certainly no end.

I would not know what is meant by the largest reason.

[bluethread]

What is the nature of the largest reason, or is there one?

There is way of thinking in human terms. Anselm and Aquinas thought back in a line and deduced that something much have started it off, since an infinite regression makes no sense.

Today we have discovered that many things make no sense but they are; in an infinite series there need be no beginning and certainly no end.

I would not know what is meant by the largest reason.

You got the idea, yet you state in passing "many things make no sense but they are". That point should not excuse rationalism from having a base, but rather it is the crux of the problem of rationalism. The question only becomes how many things that make no rational sense is one willing to abide. Unless you are conceding theism as compatible with rationalism, rationalism starts midstream and notes the current as proof of it's validity. If it is forced to go up stream, it either acknowledges that it's source falls from the sky, or declares that there need be no source.

Regarding man, do you argue for an infinite series, or do you consider there to be a beginning?

[rikuoamero]

Does He love us? That's a tough question.

Not really "a tough question" at all ... for the faithful.

JEREMIAH 31:2, 3
This is what Jehovah says ... "I have loved you with an everlasting love. That is why I have drawn you to me with loyal love"

EXODUS 34:6
Jehovah was passing before him and declaring: “Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth

DEUTERONOMY 7:9
Jehovah your God is the true God, the faithful God, keeping his covenant and loyal love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments

NWT

My earlier post on this topic
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 944#869944

I notice "impartial" in the image there. Quick question - in the stories we find in the Old Testament, where the Israelites are directed to attack followers of other religions/gods...how is Jehovah being impartial there?

[Mithrae]

The Old Testament God is the stuff of nightmares, creating and destroying, commanding and punishing, crazy with jealousy and obsessive about being "loved."

Those look like reasons to suppose that the deity was not an enlightened 21st century Australian. Are they reasons to suppose that he's not real?

Yes, when you combine that with all the all-good all-loving stuff about the same god creature elsewhere. All those contradictions make the existence of the god of abraham utterly impossible...

Utterly impossible? By implication, are you saying that it's not possible for humans to exaggerate, embellish and attribute incorrect and contradictory characteristics to an extant deity?

[alexxcJRO]

The Old Testament God is the stuff of nightmares, creating and destroying, commanding and punishing, crazy with jealousy and obsessive about being "loved."

Those look like reasons to suppose that the deity was not an enlightened 21st century Australian. Are they reasons to suppose that he's not real?

Yes, when you combine that with all the all-good all-loving stuff about the same god creature elsewhere. All those contradictions make the existence of the god of abraham utterly impossible...

Utterly impossible? By implication, are you saying that it's not possible for humans to exaggerate, embellish and attribute incorrect and contradictory characteristics to an extant deity?

All this confusion, mutually exclusive beliefs, disbelief, mess(torture, bigotry, hate, murder/genocide) involving of what God is and what God wants point to a rather grim picture for the believers:

Either God exists and he clearly does not care for us, therefore is indifferent/malevolent or he does not exist.

A personal, omnibenevolent God that wants to have a personal relationship with all humans has long been debunked.

[Mithrae]

Utterly impossible? By implication, are you saying that it's not possible for humans to exaggerate, embellish and attribute incorrect and contradictory characteristics to an extant deity?

All this confusion, mutually exclusive beliefs, disbelief, mess(torture, bigotry, hate, murder/genocide) involving of what God is and what God wants point to a rather grim picture for the believers:

Either God exists and he clearly does not care for us, therefore is indifferent/malevolent or he does not exist.

A personal, omnibenevolent God that wants to have a personal relationship with all humans has long been debunked.

I'm a glass half full kinda guy, myself. Life is pretty good for me, and generally getting better for everyone on the planet. Odds are that most people in most previous generations could have said the same thing. Human civilization has generally progressed throughout the millennia, even if it's been stilted at times. I don't see any room in that picture for a malevolent deity.

One that after less than a thousandth of a cosmic year is still learning about humans, perhaps.

[alexxcJRO]

Utterly impossible? By implication, are you saying that it's not possible for humans to exaggerate, embellish and attribute incorrect and contradictory characteristics to an extant deity?

All this confusion, mutually exclusive beliefs, disbelief, mess(torture, bigotry, hate, murder/genocide) involving of what God is and what God wants point to a rather grim picture for the believers:

Either God exists and he clearly does not care for us, therefore is indifferent/malevolent or he does not exist.

A personal, omnibenevolent God that wants to have a personal relationship with all humans has long been debunked.

I'm a glass half full kinda guy, myself. Life is pretty good for me, and generally getting better for everyone on the planet. Odds are that most people in most previous generations could have said the same thing. Human civilization has generally progressed throughout the millennia, even if it's been stilted at times. I don't see any room in that picture for a malevolent deity.

One that after less than a thousandth of a cosmic year is still learning about humans, perhaps.

Q: Why the straw-man?

I was talking only about things humans do involving of what God is and what God wants.
It’s obvious that all this confusion, mutually exclusive beliefs, disbelief, mess(torture, bigotry, hate, murder/genocide) involving of what God is and what God wants exists today and has existed in the past.

It’s clear If God exists he does not want to set the record straight.
Ergo he does not care. Therefore if he exists he can only be indifferent/malevolent.

[Justin108]

Does He love us? That's a tough question.

Not really "a tough question" at all ... for the faithful.

JEREMIAH 31:2, 3
This is what Jehovah says ... "I have loved you with an everlasting love. That is why I have drawn you to me with loyal love"

EXODUS 34:6
Jehovah was passing before him and declaring: “Jehovah, Jehovah, a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth

DEUTERONOMY 7:9
Jehovah your God is the true God, the faithful God, keeping his covenant and loyal love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments

NWT

My earlier post on this topic
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 944#869944

Jehovah's qualities: "humility"

Exodus 20
And God spoke all these words:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

“You shall have no other gods before me.

[Mithrae]

I'm a glass half full kinda guy, myself. Life is pretty good for me, and generally getting better for everyone on the planet. Odds are that most people in most previous generations could have said the same thing. Human civilization has generally progressed throughout the millennia, even if it's been stilted at times. I don't see any room in that picture for a malevolent deity.

One that after less than a thousandth of a cosmic year is still learning about humans, perhaps.

Q: Why the straw-man?

I was talking only about things humans do involving of what God is and what God wants.
It’s obvious that all this confusion, mutually exclusive beliefs, disbelief, mess(torture, bigotry, hate, murder/genocide) involving of what God is and what God wants exists today and has existed in the past.

It’s clear If God exists he does not want to set the record straight.
Ergo he does not care. Therefore if he exists he can only be indifferent/malevolent.

How would you have him set the record straight? You don't have some kind of ridiculous notion that he should personally come to Earth and say things like "love your neighbour" and "do to others as you'd want done to you," do you? 'cos that's just expecting far too much

Or maybe the problem is that those concepts themselves are so absurd that if this hypothetical deity wanted anyone to follow them, she really ought to offer absolute, irrefutable proof that being nice to others is the best thing to do?