Is God Altruistic? Is God Happy?

[brewer]

Nope, I'm pretty sure he included the abrahamic gods, the hindu gods, the Hale Bopp gods, ............

You're having filter issues again.

I don't know what Gae intended. 

If we're talking about the classical theologians, they objected to the capriciousness of the polytheistic gods, largely to contrast it with the impassible God they believed in. This is comparable to the Hindu Brahman, but not, for example, Shiva.

I'd call the abrahamic god capricious. Just one example would be killing children with bears because they made fun of a bald man. I think the whole book of Job would fit also. 

We're talking about what is written about god, not what a theological filter and/or your filter interprets. 

But I'm sure you know better than me.

[Belacqua]

I don't know what Gae intended. 

If we're talking about the classical theologians, they objected to the capriciousness of the polytheistic gods, largely to contrast it with the impassible God they believed in. This is comparable to the Hindu Brahman, but not, for example, Shiva.

I'd call the abrahamic god capricious. Just one example would be killing children with bears because they made fun of a bald man. I think the whole book of Job would fit also. 

We're talking about what is written about god, not what a theological filter and/or your filter interprets. 

But I'm sure you know better than me.

Right. As I said at the beginning, this is a problem for people who take the Old Testament literally. 

"What is written about god" includes a hell of a lot more than the Bible. It's important not to filter out the stuff that doesn't meet your preconceptions.

[brewer]

I'd call the abrahamic god capricious. Just one example would be killing children with bears because they made fun of a bald man. I think the whole book of Job would fit also. 

We're talking about what is written about god, not what a theological filter and/or your filter interprets. 

But I'm sure you know better than me.

Right. As I said at the beginning, this is a problem for people who take the Old Testament literally. 

"What is written about god" includes a hell of a lot more than the Bible. It's important not to filter out the stuff that doesn't meet your preconceptions.

Yep, but thru a theological filter. 

For the christian god exists people isn't the OT considered the word of god? Why shouldn't it be taken literal, unless god has a communication problem.

Still capricious. Your dodge attempt didn't work.

[Belacqua]

Right. As I said at the beginning, this is a problem for people who take the Old Testament literally. 

"What is written about god" includes a hell of a lot more than the Bible. It's important not to filter out the stuff that doesn't meet your preconceptions.

Yep, but thru a theological filter. 

For the christian god exists people isn't the OT considered the word of god? Why shouldn't it be taken literal, unless god has a communication problem.

Still capricious. Your dodge attempt didn't work.

You could read what St. Augustine had to say about why the OT shouldn't be taken literally. Most theologians interpret the Bible with a 4-level hermeneutical system, with a literal reading being the lowest. 

We should also keep in mind that when theologians talk about a "literal" reading, it may be different than the way we usually use the term.

This is from Wikipedia:

Alternatively, the term [literal] can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of mainstream Judaism or Mainline Protestantism. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.[5]

So for example, in this sense, a literal reading would identify if a given section is a parable, and interpret it in that way.

[brewer]

Yep, but thru a theological filter. 

For the christian god exists people isn't the OT considered the word of god? Why shouldn't it be taken literal, unless god has a communication problem.

Still capricious. Your dodge attempt didn't work.

You could read what St. Augustine had to say about why the OT shouldn't be taken literally. Most theologians interpret the Bible with a 4-level hermeneutical system, with a literal reading being the lowest. 

We should also keep in mind that when theologians talk about a "literal" reading, it may be different than the way we usually use the term.

This is from Wikipedia:

Alternatively, the term [literal] can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of mainstream Judaism or Mainline Protestantism. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.[5]

So for example, in this sense, a literal reading would identify if a given section is a parable, and interpret it in that way.

I get it. Only the really smart people (typically with and agenda or motive) should be able to read the bible and then tell us what it means. gods own personal spin doctors. 

Guess Gutenberg didn't do anyone any favors.

[Belacqua]

You could read what St. Augustine had to say about why the OT shouldn't be taken literally. Most theologians interpret the Bible with a 4-level hermeneutical system, with a literal reading being the lowest. 

We should also keep in mind that when theologians talk about a "literal" reading, it may be different than the way we usually use the term.

This is from Wikipedia:


So for example, in this sense, a literal reading would identify if a given section is a parable, and interpret it in that way.

I get it. Only the really smart people (typically with and agenda or motive) should be able to read the bible and then tell us what it means. gods own personal spin doctors. 

Guess Gutenberg didn't do anyone any favors.

Generally it's good to get smart people's opinions when reading any book, I guess. 

Gutenberg (and even more, Aldus Manutius) did a wonderful service for the world.

[brewer]

I get it. Only the really smart people (typically with and agenda or motive) should be able to read the bible and then tell us what it means. gods own personal spin doctors. 

Guess Gutenberg didn't do anyone any favors.

Generally it's good to get smart people's opinions when reading any book, I guess. 

Gutenberg (and even more, Aldus Manutius) did a wonderful service for the world.

But you seem to only want to hear from the smart people with their head up gods ass. 

Not if none of the people really know what gods was saying. You position is that it's to complex for the likes of me. Way to go god.

[Belacqua]

seem

Your interpretation. Again, you're mind-reading.

[brewer]

seem

Your interpretation. Again, you're mind-reading.

Ya got someone that you like, refer to and quote often (here at AF) that is not a head/ass man? That does not have a pro god agenda? St. Augustine sure wouldn't count.

[Belacqua]

head/ass

Please give me some names of thinkers you approve of.