converting back unto theism - yes it's true.

[tackattack]

I'll save that for another thread tonight frank.

[Frank]

I'll save that for another thread tonight frank.

Sorry man (I was just joking around, well about the me being moral part anyway ). But the OT is hard to reconcile with the idea of "lovingness" (for me anyway)?

[Watson]

Consider this, then: The OT was written by mere men, who only understood God insofar as they understood the world around them. So, whie certain aspects of the OT seem very loving because they are written by men who were a bit wiser, other parts are written by men who did not understand how scientific laws and principles worked, so certain occurences, say for example lightning, were simply attributed to God, thus making Him seem bloodthirsty.

[Frank]

Consider this, then: The OT was written by mere men, who only understood God insofar as they understood the world around them. So, whie certain aspects of the OT seem very loving because they are written by men who were a bit wiser, other parts are written by men who did not understand how scientific laws and principles worked, so certain occurences, say for example lightning, were simply attributed to God, thus making Him seem bloodthirsty.

I'm not gonna let you off the hook that easily my friend. You can't logically fit that sort of explanation into, for instance, the Exodus narrative. God killed (or directly ordered the killing) of thousands of Egyptian infants and young boys to convince a single man (the Pharaoh) to change his mind. Why not just kill the Pharaoh? Or in the alternative why not simply manipulate his thoughts? Instead, god chose mass murder, and not just the run of the mill ordinary sort of mass murder, but the mass murder of little babies. So god's loving message to his depraved little creatures is ..... obey me or I'm gonna kill your babies, right before I burn you in hell forever.

Is that seriously the type of behavior anyone with any bit of common sense would expect from a super-being like a god? Doesn't that sound all too human to you (it sure the hell does to me)? In fact not only human, but it sounds pretty consistent with the sort of thing a semi-literate, primitive human might concoct (hmmm, what a coincidence, exactly like the bible authors were).

Let's face it, Abrahamic religions are the musings of a primitive, nomadic, superstitious desert tribe. It's a sprinkling of various religious influences from the region (e.g. Egyptian, Sumerian, etc.), combined with the type of vengence they probably wished upon their enemies, and the special status I'm sure they naturally dreamed of (given that they were a small tribe who kept running into super-civilizations). The only thing unique about the whole thing is it wound up in the sphere of Roman civilization, which is why a hybrid version of it was ultimately thrusted on the human race (and didn't die the death all bizarre ancient myths are supposed to die). No divine providence, just another weird set of circumstances in the weird history of our species and the universe.

[Watson]

You answered your own question with that last sentence there, dude. The Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by men who were writing about God, as they understood Him at the time. To them, since they had seen demonstrations of God's supposed 'wrath' before, it would have seemed very much the sort of thing He would do, ordering the mass murder of babies. God Himself had not changed, merely the men who wrote about Him's perspective of Him.

[Frank]

You answered your own question with that last sentence there, dude. The Bible wasn't written by God, it was written by men who were writing about God, as they understood Him at the time. To them, since they had seen demonstrations of God's supposed 'wrath' before, it would have seemed very much the sort of thing He would do, ordering the mass murder of babies. God Himself had not changed, merely the men who wrote about Him's perspective of Him.

It's either that or they just made it all up & none of it has any substantive basis in fact (beyond perhaps the occasional, and natural correlation with actual historical events). How about an an alternate explanation. Paranoia and dualism were built in by natural selection as survival mechanisms, and resulted in our predisposition toward superstition and religiosity (along with other evolutionary, psychological, and sociological factors). This is why smarter people tend to be less religious.

[Watson]

I consider myself pretty smart, thanks.

Again, in the early days of man, yes, he was more paranoid, and thus you see an extraordinary amount of superstition to the Bible which can not be substantiated or backed up, really. However, in modern times, when people are more rational and aware of the world around them, as well as how it works, you see quite te pull away from such superstition and begin to see religious folks with more philosophical outlooks on life.

It's not that the Bible is invalid, but that it was written at a time when society and science were barely forming(science not even), and so was based more on presumption and fear than anything. IMHO, I can pick out certain parts o the Bible that really nail it when it comes to God, and point to others which do not so muc hrepresent God as they do man's hunger for power and superstition.

[Frank]

I consider myself pretty smart, thanks.

Again, in the early days of man, yes, he was more paranoid, and thus you see an extraordinary amount of superstition to the Bible which can not be substantiated or backed up, really. However, in modern times, when people are more rational and aware of the world around them, as well as how it works, you see quite te pull away from such superstition and begin to see religious folks with more philosophical outlooks on life.

It's not that the Bible is invalid, but that it was written at a time when society and science were barely forming(science not even), and so was based more on presumption and fear than anything. IMHO, I can pick out certain parts o the Bible that really nail it when it comes to God, and point to others which do not so muc hrepresent God as they do man's hunger for power and superstition.

I view it more simply I guess. Either you believe a spirit god took the form of a burning bush and spoke to a guy named Moses, or you don't. Either you believe there's an all powerful god, who rather than creating mankind ex nihilo, elected a several billion year long evolutionary process (not to mention the long drawn out process of creating the universe as it exists today), or you don't. Either you believe this god had as an eternal plan the desire to create a depraved species, just so he can take their physical form and allow them to kill him, so he could make a ritualistic blood sacrifice for their sins, or you don't. Either you believe we're a bunch of hopeless depraved creatures because our first mother was tricked by a talking snake into eating from a magical tree, or you don't.

If you don't believe these things but still believe in god, what are your options? I guess you have to think all the worlds holy books are distorted manifestations of this god. IMO, that's wishful thinking. There is absolutely no empirical reason to believe what you're asserting has any relationship with reality, not a single one. Sure, I admit, I'm not enthusiastic about my future as worm food, or the potential entropic death of the universe, but that's what all the real evidence we have suggests will happen.

As far as mankind’s paranoia, it's a survival mechanism built in by natural selection (so it's still there). But we also have an innate predisposition towards cooperation, group think and social interaction (also features built in by natural selection). Comparatively we have immense intellectual capacity; and all these things are able to mitigate the harmful potential of our paranoia (but it remains a prevalent feature in extreme forms of religiosity, nationalism, racism, etc.).

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you being facetious? If not what brought this back on and why that particular version of God? If you're not trolling then congradulations might be in order :S Any knew found views IMO are worthy of a celebration!

A schizophrenic who changes their views every two seconds would be worthy of a whole festival dedicated to them then!

EvF

[tackattack]

So would a saint who's views are set in stone and on faith.. but one is far more productive than the other. I think we already have those festivals though.