Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:
As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.
My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).
(October 8, 2015 at 8:34 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's not really about what kind of god would be acceptable to me. Though I suppose if I had to think about the question a bit, I'd at least include "not genocidal, not giving 'divine revelations' that are in opposition to clearly-observable and -testable science, and does not feel the need to threaten humans into obedience". Maybe one that revealed Himself in a way that's a little less like UFOs picking up drunken rednecks out in the desert near Nevada, and, say maybe visited the population centers of Babylon, Athens, China, Rome, or Alexandria, instead of one of the most backward peoples on the planet, and then hoping we all extrapolate His existence from the sparse, secondhand accounts of questionable reliability based on testimony of a few guys who came from there telling a story of a dude in the desert.
What is not acceptable to me is a god-concept that is so obviously manmade, full of all of the prejudices and superstitions and barbaric violence of a group of desert tribesmen, who apparently didn't know that by showing up in the Mideast he'd be ignoring the entirety of China and SE Asia, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, et cetera.
What is not acceptable to me is a "free gift" that is on unnecessary pain of torture for disobedience, like a psychopathic pharaoh, when all that needs to happen (if we assume the proposition that an Omnipotent God somehow cannot stand the sight of sin and thus cannot let sinners into heaven) is that I die. Just die. End. Finis. I have failed to listen to the Messiah and find The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and am unable to come unto the Father. Great. Only those who do so get to go to heaven. Why the torture? It's unnecessary for God, but totally necessary for a priest who is trying to force as many people to accept his authority as possible, and is willing to use immoral means of psychological manipulation to do so.
When I cannot tell your God from a psychopath, it is unacceptable to me, because I am a moral person.
So I suppose the short answer is: "For starters, not a homicidal, genocidal, misogynistic, eternal-torturing psychopath."
As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.
My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
