(December 8, 2023 at 1:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 8, 2023 at 12:11 pm)ShinyCrystals Wrote: With all these replies and what they are saying, I must ask…

How many Christians, or any religious group for that matter, realize they are following an authoritarian and nonexistent being like God (or other gods depending on the religion)? Do they even care, and are they maybe blind to the authoritarian side of such being(s)? I ask because the authoritarian thing conflicts with freedom, which most people value, and I think those who follow such beings(s) don’t seem to know that. Following God or gods can’t logically be a good exception to humans having or exercising freedom, especially with such beings being authoritarian.

Look at the metaphors they use: they are a herd of sheep to be led by the Shepherd. They are clay on the Potter's wheel. This rather speaks to their sense of being helpless nonagents, to be shaped by their lord. I bet they don't see God as authoritarian because they have voluntarily surrendered a good part of their agency.

Now, that is something I would think. As I said before, those people are under a nonexistent being’s thumb, that being being God (or other gods), and those people can’t think for themselves or can’t really do what they want to or should do, as they are too dependent on another being, even if that being(s) actually has no existence at all.

(December 8, 2023 at 1:58 pm)ShinyCrystals Wrote: Now, that is something I would think. As I said before, those people are under a nonexistent being’s thumb, that being being God (or other gods), and those people can’t think for themselves or can’t really do what they want to or should do, as they are too dependent on another being, even if that being(s) actually has no existence at all.

Right -- it's not at all about the alleged qualities of the hypothetical god, it's what these believers think of him and their relationship to him, such as it is.

If a god is in control of the laws of the universe, then we have imposed authority on the universe. As inhabitants of this universe, we are subject to those laws, absolutely.

Therefore God is an authoritarian, but in a non-arbitrary way. Jump off a cliff and you fall.

Now, if people want to assert that God also makes commands of behavior, and will punish those in some afterlife (or imminently for those in the Old Testament), now we get God as authoritarian, but in an arbitrary way. Transgressions can be forgiven through sacrifice or prayer, and the rules are whatever God decides they are at any given time.

(December 8, 2023 at 12:11 pm)ShinyCrystals Wrote: With all these replies and what they are saying, I must ask…

How many Christians, or any religious group for that matter, realize they are following an authoritarian and nonexistent being like God (or other gods depending on the religion)? Do they even care, and are they maybe blind to the authoritarian side of such being(s)? I ask because the authoritarian thing conflicts with freedom, which most people value, and I think those who follow such beings(s) don’t seem to know that. Following God or gods can’t logically be a good exception to humans having or exercising freedom, especially with such beings being authoritarian.

The leadership understand this fact but are probably hoping not too many of their followers do.

"Fear of God's wrath keeps me from doing evil things!"

"Not doing them because you consider them evil isn't enough?"

(December 8, 2023 at 1:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Look at the metaphors they use: they are a herd of sheep to be led by the Shepherd. They are clay on the Potter's wheel. This rather speaks to their sense of being helpless nonagents, to be shaped by their lord. I bet they don't see God as authoritarian because they have voluntarily surrendered a good part of their agency.

That speaks to the pastoralist source, or, in the case of the nt, imitation of said source.  Sounds weird today, but these weren't bad things back then.  Sheep were wealth and warmth and food - they did not have the negative connotations we associate with them today.  In it's time, that sort of stuff was life affirming.  It comes out of the development of small hillholding families and communities.  The Shepherd was very often the pater familias (or his responsible sons) and the good shepherd is, essentially, the picture of a good family man.  Some of the best descriptions of the abrahamic god and gods relationship to man come out of these semantics.  If it were written here and today, god would be the good company man.  He'd be a union boss...or a randian hero.  

Leads me into a comment on some other things in thread.  The idea that the religious cannot think for themselves.  It's not that.  They can.  Even in the hypothetical of a family religion or ancestor worship it may be that the people do the thing but they do it because they also agree with the thing.  Ancestral gods that people no longer agree with or organize around have become imps and devils and demons in the new religions, when they're remembered at all.  I have a private little giggle everytime that the faithful tell me their god is immortal and immutable.  I know that's not true. In the wider view, it's usually not because a person believes in some private god that they act out in novel ways.  It takes gods whole society to keep gods children in line..so much as they can, god himself is not up to the task - anymore than any of our own dead fathers were up to the task of controlling every aspect of their childrens lives and thoughts.

Fictional, yes.

Bad fiction at that.

(December 8, 2023 at 7:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(December 8, 2023 at 1:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Look at the metaphors they use: they are a herd of sheep to be led by the Shepherd. They are clay on the Potter's wheel. This rather speaks to their sense of being helpless nonagents, to be shaped by their lord. I bet they don't see God as authoritarian because they have voluntarily surrendered a good part of their agency.

That speaks to the pastoralist source, or, in the case of the nt, imitation of said source.  Sounds weird today, but these weren't bad things back then.  Sheep were wealth and warmth and food - they did not have the negative connotations we associate with them today.  In it's time, that sort of stuff was life affirming.  It comes out of the development of small hillholding families and communities.  The Shepherd was very often the pater familias (or his responsible sons) and the good shepherd is, essentially, the picture of a good family man.  Some of the best descriptions of the abrahamic god and gods relationship to man come out of these semantics.  If it were written here and today, god would be the good company man.  He'd be a union boss...or a randian hero.  

Leads me into a comment on some other things in thread.  The idea that the religious cannot think for themselves.  It's not that.  They can.  Even in the hypothetical of a family religion or ancestor worship it may be that the people do the thing but they do it because they also agree with the thing.  Ancestral gods that people no longer agree with or organize around have become imps and devils and demons in the new religions, when they're remembered at all.  I have a private little giggle everytime that the faithful tell me their god is immortal and immutable.  I know that's not true. In the wider view, it's usually not because a person believes in some private god that they act out in novel ways.  It takes gods whole society to keep gods children in line..so much as they can, god himself is not up to the task - anymore than any of our own dead fathers were up to the task of controlling every aspect of their childrens lives and thoughts.

Well, maybe "can't think for themselves" were not the right words, but for those who can think for themselves, it is still a thing for them to worship a being that does not really exist that is authoritarian/dictator like. In fact, there are those abusing God's word for their own power over others, so even if those who believe in God do realize he is authoritarian, chances are they don't care, and want to use the idea of God and God's being authoritarian to take advantage of others. It's quite sad, really.

No one abuses a gods power or word. God is abuse.

If you take away a gods authority, do you still have a god? Or are you, then, talking about something else? It's not sad. Sad is when your kids miss their cookie drive marks so the program can't be funded. The god thing is just a tuesday, warts and all.

(December 9, 2023 at 2:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No one abuses a gods power or word.  God is abuse.  

If you take away a gods authority, do you still have a god?  Or are you, then, talking about something else?  It's not sad.  Sad is when your kids miss their cookie drive marks so the program can't be funded.  The god thing is just a tuesday, warts and all.

Sad.....I think "unfortunate" would've been a better word to use. Still, it's only unfortunate for those who can't get with the program. The leaders don't even need to try, their God has them vetted for success from the get go.