Gods supposed perfection

[Losty]

---

The answer may offend you, but....

Isaiah 45:9 (9"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '?) is quoted and expounded in Romans 9:16-24

16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

---

Often we want God to be how we want Him to be, act how we want Him to act, so as to serve our wills. We want to create a God in our image. This is the perspective of humanism interpreting scripture, namely "It should be all about ME, all for MY benefit." Well, who are you oh man that you should.....

So, instead, you create a god in your mind who created you just to fuck with you. Makes perfect sense.

[robvalue]

If the christian (or muslim) god did exist (which they clearly don't) then

(a) It is a dick
(b) I wouldn't worship it

It's about as close to perfect as I am to slam dunking while sitting down.

And as I've made threads about before, even if you take "just looking at stuff" as evidence for god, all that gives you is some sort of god. There is no justification for then just inserted your own god into this, based on some old book written by ignorant war mongers.

There was a great thing I heard on an edition of The Atheist Experience, it went something like this: "The Bible is exactly what you would expect to see if a bunch of people 2000 years ago wrote a book about stuff they knew, and trying to write about a god." How can you possibly tell the difference between a book written by these idiots, and one which is somehow magically imbued with truth? Urgh, it boggles my brain how that book has brainwashed so many people. Or rather, how it has been used to brainwash people. Funny thing is, most christians haven't even read it properly. I wonder how many know what the real 10 commandments are? They are not the ones that are inserted into courthouses and other public places against the first amendment. The real ones, you know, the ones carried around in the ark. The ones that weren't smashed up. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCJ8rb8Grw

[Esquilax]

[hide]
Often we want God to be how we want Him to be, act how we want Him to act, so as to serve our wills. We want to create a God in our image. This is the perspective of humanism interpreting scripture, namely "It should be all about ME, all for MY benefit." Well, who are you oh man that you should.....

I am so fucking tired of hearing this passive aggressive "oh, you just want god to behave like you want him to, you want to tell god what to do!" That's not, usually, the argument being made, but it's what it gets twisted into because it's easier to make the opponent out to be arrogant and prideful rather than to address the issue, which is that god as he is described in the bible does not match up with the claims made about him.

This isn't about selfishly reinventing god to suit our purposes, unsurprisingly you've got this completely backwards. It's about comparing the actions of god to his purported characteristics- infallibility, omnibenevolence, etc etc- and finding that the two don't match up. Kindly stop with this stupid strawman; it is offensive to the intelligence of everyone in the thread, and if you honestly believe that it is what is being said, then you need some serious help with your reading comprehension.

This isn't us demanding that god works in certain ways; what you're seeing is our refusal to do what you yourself are doing, namely retrofitting god's actions into the presuppositions about his nature that you already have and refuse to relinquish.

This is the conundrum I face in speaking with atheists. On the one hand, God's punishment is unfair, it's too much. On the other hand, not punishing is unfair, it's not enough.

And are you honestly saying here that you can't see the huge, huge expanses of possible punishment between "no punishment at all," and "eternal, constant, inhumane torture"? You really can't see any other alternative?

Oh, and you can't see the difference between an elected official and a dictator either?

[Chad32]

@Chad32
Out of curiosity, do you take issue with God's infinite mercy, or just His infinite justice?

I take issue with the bible's definition of both. Justice because we're being punished for something we have no control over. Mercy because we're expected to beg forgiveness for something we have no control over.

[Cyberman]

Appeals to a monarchy aren't going to make it any better. Godamned king at my door..psh...I'd say go fuck yourself with your fancy hat. Murica!

Exactly. And I'm replying to you for the same reason I abandoned the cut/paste job last time; your post is the most convenient.

Even if our monarch knocked on my door and wanted my head off, she would still be bound by constitutional laws like everyone else. The days of the monarch being judge, jury and executioner are long past and good riddance. It's interesting and not a little revealing that in comparisons with human-based moral systems, your god's version always comes off worst.

You got a laugh out of me for imagining that any of our royals would get up off their parasitic arses and come to my door, though. Fair play to you for that.

[orangebox21]

So, instead, you create a god in your mind who created you just to fuck with you. Makes perfect sense.

Are you suggesting that I created the God of the Bible in my mind?

I am so fucking tired of hearing this passive aggressive "oh, you just want god to behave like you want him to, you want to tell god what to do!" That's not, usually, the argument being made, but it's what it gets twisted into because it's easier to make the opponent out to be arrogant and prideful rather than to address the issue, which is that god as he is described in the bible does not match up with the claims made about him.

The initial claim is that 'God is morally wrong because eternal punishment is wrong.' This assertion is different than 'God is morally wrong because how He is described in the bible does not match up with the claims made about him.'

The initial claim made, is that God is immoral because eternal punishment is wrong. The atheist uses this assertion to conclude God's not fair, not moral, not worthy of praise, doesn't exist, etc. The direct implication of the original claim is that if God punished people in a way fitting to the critics liking [acted the way I want Him too], then He would be fair, moral, worthy of praise, existent, etc.

If you want to claim that God is wrong to punish people, then justify the claim. If you want to argue that God, as He is described in the Bible, does not match up with the claims made about him, then justify that claim. I'm content discussing either claim.

This isn't about selfishly reinventing god to suit our purposes, unsurprisingly you've got this completely backwards. It's about comparing the actions of god to his purported characteristics- infallibility, omnibenevolence, etc etc- and finding that the two don't match up. Kindly stop with this stupid strawman; it is offensive to the intelligence of everyone in the thread, and if you honestly believe that it is what is being said, then you need some serious help with your reading comprehension.
This isn't us demanding that god works in certain ways; what you're seeing is our refusal to do what you yourself are doing, namely retrofitting god's actions into the presuppositions about his nature that you already have and refuse to relinquish.

How do you know that I'm assuming the conclusion [God's nature] to prove the premise [God's actions]? How do you know that I don't recognize that people break the moral law, read in the Bible that God forgives [action] some [through sacrificial atonement] and doesn't forgive others and then conclude that God [His nature] is both merciful and just?

And are you honestly saying here that you can't see the huge, huge expanses of possible punishment between "no punishment at all," and "eternal, constant, inhumane torture"? You really can't see any other alternative?

Are you honestly suggesting here that I have an argument with myself? I can think of possible alternatives, but no one has offered one.

I take issue with the bible's definition of both. Justice because we're being punished for something we have no control over. Mercy because we're expected to beg forgiveness for something we have no control over.

What are you defining as the 'something' we have no control over? And please explain how we have no control over 'it'.

[Chad32]

Absolutely no one is claiming Yahweh is wrong to punish someone, and saying so is an obvious strawman. His actions don't match up with someone who claims to be good. This should be obvious. No one could make a story in this day and age about a guy that does the kinds of things that yahweh does, and expect to get away with him being portrayed as good. Even if he was portrayed as the creator of the world in that universe.

I'm told that I am born sinful because of something that happened in the past, and I should beg forgiveness for being flawed despite the fact that I had no choice in being flawed. If I am given something, and lose it, I should apologize. I shouldn't have to apologize for lacking something I never had and could never obtain. Especially from a god that believes thoughts are as bad as actions.

[orangebox21]

Absolutely no one is claiming Yahweh is wrong to punish someone,

So God is justified in His punishment then?

His actions don't match up with someone who claims to be good.

Punishing wrongdoing isn't consistent with someone who is good?

I'm told that I am born sinful because of something that happened in the past, and I should beg forgiveness for being flawed despite the fact that I had no choice in being flawed.

Have you done something morally wrong in the past month? If so, are you responsible for the wrong that you did?

[Chad32]

Absolutely no one is claiming Yahweh is wrong to punish someone,

So God is justified in His punishment then?

His actions don't match up with someone who claims to be good.

Punishing wrongdoing isn't consistent with someone who is good?

I'm told that I am born sinful because of something that happened in the past, and I should beg forgiveness for being flawed despite the fact that I had no choice in being flawed.

Have you done something morally wrong in the past month? If so, are you responsible for the wrong that you did?

No, he is not justified in torturing people for eternity. I said somewhere recently, in this thread or another, that if it was some sort of community service for a finite amount of time, I'd be happy to work it off for any crimes I've done. But apparently drifting in a lake of fire serves nothing but spiteful revenge.

I'd like to think you aren't stupid enough to not get this. There are more reasonable and constructive ways to meet out justice than eternal hellfire.

I have not killed anyone, despite being tempted to. I have not raped anyone despite being tempted to. I have not stolen things, despite being tempted to. Yet I would apparently be judged by your god for thoughts as if they were actions. These are the kinds of things I have no control over, yet apparently would be judged for.

[Ksa]

I guess perhaps I address this question to theists...if God is so perfect, and created Adam and eve as perfect in his image, then why did they disobey him? If they were created without sin then how is it they came to sin?

Brother asks a very important question, I'll answer it for the theists to save time with this debate:

Brother is asking, if God is perfect, how come he created something un-perfect. Because, if you look at Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Christianity, you understand the concept of the oneness of God. Eventhough God is all-mighty, HE CAN'T CREATE ANOTHER GOD!

The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is?:

Eka braham teutanaste
Nena naste kinchen
Bagwan echihe
Dusura nehihe
Nehihe nehihe zarabi nehihe.

So God is ONE, without a second, without a double. It is also mentioned in the Quran, in Surat Al-'Ikhlas, llamullet wallam yulat, he begets not nor is he begotten, there's nothing like onto Him.

So only God is perfect, if you're asking if Adam and Eve are perfect, no they were not and nor are we. The fact that we have a free will, where we can choose to obey God or not, is actually what makes us closer to perfect, or closer to God: We have a reason! We're intelligent.

So it is not an imperfection, it is something bringing the human race closer to perfection. You see a dog, obeys his master, he has no free will, he can't NOT obey him. That's because it's an inferior being that acknowledges your superiority as a human. And that's why religious people bo down onto God, because they also acknowledge His superiority.