Morality despite conflicting behavior.
May 21, 2013 at 10:52 am
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2013 at 10:58 am by That guy who asked questions.)
The god referred to in this discussion is the god from The Bible. I find a fatal flaw within this belief system that I see no way to reasonably and sufficiently object to as a mere contextual misrepresentation.
The concept of god within The Bible is as follows:
God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, and perfectly righteous being.
The idea of god is an amazing god; however, the problem arises when the contradictions are viewed. I like to call these contradictions the "word to action polarity dilemma." This dilemma is the result of the god of The Bible describing objective morals, such as "do not murder, do not covet, etc" and then reflecting an exact opposite of the morals it has set. Not only is this dilemma present within the god described in The Bible but the very universal concept of the god is contradictory to the god of The Bible. The contradictions of its concept is as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, yet he seems incapable to provide any conclusive evidence to his own existence.
2. God Is omniscient, therefore he knows everything that has ever happened or will happen throughout the existence of time. This means that he knew of the rebellion of Satan and the sin of man and the later evil deeds but as the creator of the universe he intended these things to happen. He is the author of evil.
3. God is omnipresent, yet with him not capable of being observed within the natural world he cannot possibly be omnipresent.
4. God is loving and perfectly righteous. As stated in 2, If God is omniscient he is therefore the author of evil and as a result cannot be perfectly righteous. By willingly creating the universe and creating man to be evil and then developing an eternal punishment for having the evil qualities that he created, he cannot therefore be a loving god. This would be like me telling my child to touch the hot eye of the stove and after he does and it burns him I slap him for doing it.
Not only is this god hypocritical by nature he is also hypocritical through action. His words describe an objective morality but his actions reflect the exact opposite. For example, Genesis 20:13 "Do not murder." Then in 1 Samuel 15:2,3 God speaking in first person commands Saul to "completely destroy everything... Kill men, women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys." This is a contradiction of character! You cannot command all people to not kill and then command one to kill an entire group of people and remain consistently righteous. The typical response is "god is mysterious and his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts." This is an absolute trashy excuse. This is what I call the "unjustified justification principle." When we have the concept of a perfect being as god and then the god reflects what would be seen as unjustified by us, we justify the actions by referring to the original concept. A being cannot be justified by popular concept, just as I would not be considered a faithful husband if I cheated on my wife, just because I am perceived to be a faithful husband. The concept of me being a faithful husband is influenced by my statement, "I am faithful" and then my actions that reflect faithfulness to my wife. In the same way god cannot be completely moral unless his command "A" is consistently reflected by future commands.
Another big contradiction according to the "word to action polarity dilemma" is that the god in The Bible describes himself as "a jealous god" then specifically commands his creation to not be jealous. This is hypocrisy at its finest. As a result of these conclusions the definition of god is one of the following:
1."God" is not god.
2. God is not what we conceive him to be.
3. God is a hypocrite
4. This god doesn't exist.
All of these are reasonable conclusions. I personally accept all of these as explanation. The fact of the matter is that as we conceive god to be and as we examine the god of The Bible the problem we face is perfect inconsistency. In conclusion, a perfect god's perfect words must be perfectly consistent with his perfect actions, otherwise this perfect god is not perfect and therefore cannot be god as currently conceived.
The concept of god within The Bible is as follows:
God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving, and perfectly righteous being.
The idea of god is an amazing god; however, the problem arises when the contradictions are viewed. I like to call these contradictions the "word to action polarity dilemma." This dilemma is the result of the god of The Bible describing objective morals, such as "do not murder, do not covet, etc" and then reflecting an exact opposite of the morals it has set. Not only is this dilemma present within the god described in The Bible but the very universal concept of the god is contradictory to the god of The Bible. The contradictions of its concept is as follows:
1. God is omnipotent, yet he seems incapable to provide any conclusive evidence to his own existence.
2. God Is omniscient, therefore he knows everything that has ever happened or will happen throughout the existence of time. This means that he knew of the rebellion of Satan and the sin of man and the later evil deeds but as the creator of the universe he intended these things to happen. He is the author of evil.
3. God is omnipresent, yet with him not capable of being observed within the natural world he cannot possibly be omnipresent.
4. God is loving and perfectly righteous. As stated in 2, If God is omniscient he is therefore the author of evil and as a result cannot be perfectly righteous. By willingly creating the universe and creating man to be evil and then developing an eternal punishment for having the evil qualities that he created, he cannot therefore be a loving god. This would be like me telling my child to touch the hot eye of the stove and after he does and it burns him I slap him for doing it.
Not only is this god hypocritical by nature he is also hypocritical through action. His words describe an objective morality but his actions reflect the exact opposite. For example, Genesis 20:13 "Do not murder." Then in 1 Samuel 15:2,3 God speaking in first person commands Saul to "completely destroy everything... Kill men, women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys." This is a contradiction of character! You cannot command all people to not kill and then command one to kill an entire group of people and remain consistently righteous. The typical response is "god is mysterious and his ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts are higher than our thoughts." This is an absolute trashy excuse. This is what I call the "unjustified justification principle." When we have the concept of a perfect being as god and then the god reflects what would be seen as unjustified by us, we justify the actions by referring to the original concept. A being cannot be justified by popular concept, just as I would not be considered a faithful husband if I cheated on my wife, just because I am perceived to be a faithful husband. The concept of me being a faithful husband is influenced by my statement, "I am faithful" and then my actions that reflect faithfulness to my wife. In the same way god cannot be completely moral unless his command "A" is consistently reflected by future commands.
Another big contradiction according to the "word to action polarity dilemma" is that the god in The Bible describes himself as "a jealous god" then specifically commands his creation to not be jealous. This is hypocrisy at its finest. As a result of these conclusions the definition of god is one of the following:
1."God" is not god.
2. God is not what we conceive him to be.
3. God is a hypocrite
4. This god doesn't exist.
All of these are reasonable conclusions. I personally accept all of these as explanation. The fact of the matter is that as we conceive god to be and as we examine the god of The Bible the problem we face is perfect inconsistency. In conclusion, a perfect god's perfect words must be perfectly consistent with his perfect actions, otherwise this perfect god is not perfect and therefore cannot be god as currently conceived.
I used to pray... but then I realized I could talk to myself and save 10% too. Who wouldn't go for that?
