Why worship a "god" that threatens you?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

[1robin]

Fine,.. just support " 'Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source'. " .. and I guess that would include a precise definition of both complexity and information

Complexity = order existing a significant distance from equilibrium in a system. Information= specified order, which also requires a decoder to be useful.
This is my informal understanding of the two. Is this close enough so far or do you want me to look up some formal definition.

And, how do you measure 'complexity'.. and please show a formal defintiion, and show that not only you are using them right, but your 'source' for this claim is. Your definition of information seems quite off.

This seems to be 'argument from vagueness'... where if you try to pin down what is actually meant, the definition changes.

No, I don't mind using the formal definitions but I was trying to avoid haveing to look them up. I plan to do so at your request but it looks like it will be monday as I am leaving at 4 and have some replies to get out.

Have a good weakend

[Autodidact]

We all have a great excuse for not understanding the things of God …[/color]

We have no excuse...we have a great excuse.

Do you see anything wrong with your logic? Does anything at all jump out at you?

[1robin]

This is a very complicated theological topic that needs it's own thread. To circumvent the points made above and to trump them so to speak. Even if the details suggest somehow God did something that according to you is wrong (I am not agreeing that he did but this is a huge subject we don't have time for here) does that mean it is not true. Even if God does things I don't understand or agree with, yet if he exists and not embracing that fact means I end up in a bad place forever, Then I would be a self-destructive fool to deny the fact. If the ship I am on is sinking and I deny the fact because I do not like the implications, while all the lifeboats are loaded and launched, and I end up drowning I am sure I would regret my thought processes. I am used to arguing the existence or non-existence of God not the morality of God from a human perspective so my answers are probably not exactly what you would like.

Actually I would argue that the argument that I brought up is at the core of this thread because this is where the threat originated in terms of the Abrahamic "god". Most Christians say that "god" is just for sending people to hell for not "accepting his gift" or what have you but when you break it down it really just looks like extortion. If I created a disease and then later created a cure but only gave it to those who subjugated themselves before me I'm sure most people would view me as cruel and manipulative. Now, I being a human am prone to making mistakes but "god" really doesn't have an excuse. Whether or not any of this story is true really doesn't matter. I'm just making a critical analysis of the scenario as a whole.

As you said it would be self-destructive not to side with "god" if any of this was true. While I would agree (if it was true) it still shows that fear rather than love is the reason you're siding with "god". That doesn't make "god" look very good. In fact, it makes "god" look like a cruel dictator rather than the benevolent deity that a good portion of Christians try to make him out to be. By that, the sinking ship analogy only works if someone sank the ship and then offered you a life-preserver only if you subjugated yourself before him.

I can easily see why a person would have this idea. It would take a long time to hash out the morality of God in these scenarios. I will try to look into it this weakend, in the meantime let me offer you of what little I actually know to be true. I have on occasion been in God's actual presence (I know this is subjective just file it away for thought). It was always in the same circumstances, I was repenting for some stupid thing I had done. When I felt him it was the sweetest most loving feeling I have ever felt touched with an element of shame but no hostility. The example of Jesus recorded in the bible is the pinacle of clarity concerning God's character. Everything else can be imagined as looking through a dirty lens, we simply don't have the information or intellect to evaluate God in a competent manner. As far as jesus goes: He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian
"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
You have to admit true or false that was well written.

This one is not as simple as you are making it. Complexity and especially information only comes from an intelligent source. Thermodynamics (the most universally applicable and immutable law in physics) states that left to themselves everything breaks down into it's least ordered state. Since our brains and all of life is incomprehensibly complex and nature can't account for it then where did it come from. By the law of cause and effect the original cause of all this order and complexity would have to be several things omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, personal, omniscient, and outside of time. This is a perfect match with what God claimed himself to be in the bible. The fine-tuning of the universe is a fact in that the parameters of any life permitting universe are a tiny band of an almost infinite band of possibilities. Even secular scientists like Hawkins, etc... confirm this. I am familiar with the counterpoints to this line of reasoning and don't find them compelling, I do not intend to sidetrack this thread but thought the info might be helpful.

Like I said though, saying something is "complex" is subjective. Just because someone believes something is too complex does not make a case for "intelligent design". I brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics in regards to our universe spiraling towards entropy which is more of a counterpoint to ID. It doesn't seem intelligent to design a universe that will ultimately burn itself out, does it? I also wouldn't say our brains are "incomprehensibly complex" or that nature can't account it came from. When you look at variables like natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, speciation etc. it becomes more comprehensible at least in terms of how it came into being. There may not be a why, you know? Also, saying we can't or will never understand something kind of puts limits on what we can learn. The only limits to what we can learn are the limits we place on ourselves.

Now, as for the "god" of the bible fitting the bill for the law of cause and effect, there are a couple of problems there.

1) While you can say it's your "god" anyone else can say it's any other "god" or specifically a "creator god".

2) Just because "god" is described as ll those things in the bible doesn't mean it's true. The argument hinges on the fact that the bible is correct versus any other religious doctrine which hasn't been demonstrated.

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

I'm all for infinite possibilities but without empirical evidence they just become speculation. Like I said, I think this is a subject for a different thread entirely but I would like to continue it. If you would like to start a thread on this and send me a link to it I'd be glad to partake.

Being that when his attributes were recorded no one knew what attributes the creator of the universe should have so the chances that they were made up are unlikely. Why were the attributes God claims for himself exactly what scientists have concluded thousands of years later were necessary for whatever force did it?
As far as your who created God point, I have always found this one illegitimate. Whatever caused the universe or caused whatever chain of beings that led to him by necessity would have to be uncaused. Only things that begin to exist require a cause. God claimed he was uncaused thousands of years before anyone ever though of the requirement. I am out of time. It has been interesting discussing issues with you. I will check in monday if not sooner and continue this if you are interested. I will think on your new thread idea and let you know. I haven't had time to consider it.

Have a good weakend

[Metatron]

Being that when his attributes were recorded no one knew what attributes the creator of the universe should have so the chances that they were made up are unlikely. Why were the attributes God claims for himself exactly what scientists have concluded thousands of years later were necessary for whatever force did it?

Eh? The Christian claims about God essentially boil down to "God can do anything" so of course they will fit with "what scientists have concluded thousands of years later were necessary for whatever force did it." If you claim that your god is omnipotent, there is no way he could NOT fill the requirement.

As far as your who created God point, I have always found this one illegitimate. Whatever caused the universe or caused whatever chain of beings that led to him by necessity would have to be uncaused. Only things that begin to exist require a cause. God claimed he was uncaused thousands of years before anyone ever though of the requirement.

1. It would be more accurate to state that those who wrote God's promotional material made the claim that he was uncaused.

2. Is it really true that writings about God were the first to propose the idea of deity as first cause? I doubt that this is the case since it seems to me that most (if not all) religions point to their deities as the first cause for the creation of the universe and some of these pre-date the existence of Judaism and thus the Bible.

[ttruscott]

...

Now, as for the "god" of the bible fitting the bill for the law of cause and effect, there are a couple of problems there.

1) While you can say it's your "god" anyone else can say it's any other "god" or specifically a "creator god".

yes they can and good luck with that...

2) Just because "god" is described as ll those things in the bible doesn't mean it's true. The argument hinges on the fact that the bible is correct versus any other religious doctrine which hasn't been demonstrated.

Yep...and we wait with bated breath!

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

I'm all for infinite possibilities but without empirical evidence they just become speculation. Like I said, I think this is a subject for a different thread entirely but I would like to continue it. If you would like to start a thread on this and send me a link to it I'd be glad to partake.

Such specualtion in fact came to an end with the creation of the physical universe before everyone's eyes when you sang HIS praises for HIS power and glory but...

you have forgotten,

Peace Ted

[Metatron]

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

Hmmm..... "logic be stuffed". This attitude might explain why I struggle finding the logic in your pre-spirit existence/material predestination bit.

I'm all for infinite possibilities but without empirical evidence they just become speculation. Like I said, I think this is a subject for a different thread entirely but I would like to continue it. If you would like to start a thread on this and send me a link to it I'd be glad to partake.

Such specualtion in fact came to an end with the creation of the physical universe before everyone's eyes when you sang HIS praises for HIS power and glory but...

you have forgotten,

So we've all already "sang HIS praises for HIS power and glory" and are all saved? Or is only OpiatefortheMasses saved?

[KCKID]

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

Hmmm..... "logic be stuffed". This attitude might explain why I struggle finding the logic in your pre-spirit existence/material predestination bit.

Agreed. While I consider myself a Christian (i.e. a believer in the 'love' teaching of Jesus Christ) I do have problems with other Christians whose attitude to 'logic' is that as expressed above. As I may have expressed here previously, not only can I not hold to the accepted Christian belief that Jesus and God are actually 'one and the same', I could no more show 'love and respect' to the OT God than I could for any other bloodlusting dictator. The OT God must surely be a concept from out of the minds of men.

So, how do I equate the OT 'ogre' God with the totally opposite NT Jesus? How can I make the suggestion that the OT God is a man-made concept but that the NT Jesus is not? After all, both identities come out of the pages of the same book. Well ...I have to admit . . .I struggle.

[Metatron]

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

Hmmm..... "logic be stuffed". This attitude might explain why I struggle finding the logic in your pre-spirit existence/material predestination bit.

Agreed. While I consider myself a Christian (i.e. a believer in the 'love' teaching of Jesus Christ) I do have problems with other Christians whose attitude to 'logic' is that as expressed above. As I may have expressed here previously, not only can I not hold to the accepted Christian belief that Jesus and God are actually 'one and the same', I could no more show 'love and respect' to the OT God than I could for any other bloodlusting dictator. The OT God must surely be a concept from out of the minds of men.

So, how do I equate the OT 'ogre' God with the totally opposite NT Jesus? How can I make the suggestion that the OT God is a man-made concept but that the NT Jesus is not? After all, both identities come out of the pages of the same book. Well ...I have to admit . . .I struggle.

Hmm... well this struggle goes away if you perceive the OT and NT as the scriptures of two different religions not one. To me the doctrines espoused in the two testaments are so profoundly different as to make combining them as one "book" kind of silly.

[ttruscott]

3) I'm sure "god" could be described as infinitely complex or fine-tuned so the same law applies to him as well. If your logic is correct something had to have created "god".

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

Hmmm..... "logic be stuffed". This attitude might explain why I struggle finding the logic in your pre-spirit existence/material predestination bit.

....

"Logic be stuffed" is my energetic way of saying that I understand my limitations to play the sophisticated word games and logic puzzles that so entrance non-believers who reject faith belief. You reject my faith belief and so claim to be the superior for it but imply my rejection of your logic as foolisheness makes me (again) inferior, so stuff it. I do not have to play by your rules when you reject mine.

Socrates could get me to think anything and the sophists were proud to be able to prove black is white until you agree and then prove white is black.

Peace, Ted

[Metatron]

Neh, logic be stuffed; GOD's self revelation says HE was not created but the eternal creator...

Hmmm..... "logic be stuffed". This attitude might explain why I struggle finding the logic in your pre-spirit existence/material predestination bit.

"Logic be stuffed" is my energetic way of saying that I understand my limitations to play the sophisticated word games and logic puzzles that so entrance non-believers who reject faith belief. You reject my faith belief and so claim to be the superior for it but imply my rejection of your logic as foolisheness makes me (again) inferior, so stuff it. I do not have to play by your rules when you reject mine.

Socrates could get me to think anything and the sophists were proud to be able to prove black is white until you agree and then prove white is black.

Peace, Ted

My point is that it is less about rejecting your rules as not understanding them. If I read through your rules and they make no logical sense to me, it is rather hard for me not to raise an objection to them since this is, after all, a debate forum.

Besides which, if your predestination argument is correct, it is rather pointless to discuss it since all of of our choices are apparently "locked in" and we can't do jack about it now.