God is a Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrant

[Si modo]

So, much of this thread seems to be a debate over what god is 'really' like. But isn't that essentially up to the individual believer? Or are you all assuming that there is only one God and that everyone else is just wrong?

Yup. It seems that way.

What "God" is, is a personal thing.

 

[Dragon]

So, much of this thread seems to be a debate over what god is 'really' like. But isn't that essentially up to the individual believer? Or are you all assuming that there is only one God and that everyone else is just wrong?

Well, that assumption is another thing about traditional Christian theology, which AmericanFirst has been rather rudely displaying.

We Pagans have a saying: all Gods are one God, all Goddesses are one Goddess, and there is but one Initiator. God is an interaction between individual imagination and something real which is experienced in certain states of consciousness. Because of the imagination part, God can take many different forms, each of them a metaphor for something that the mind can't fully grasp.

But because of the "something real" part, not all metaphors are valid, nor do all of them arise from that experience. Some are especially pernicious and awful. The God of traditional Christian theology is among the worst.

 

[dblack]

But because of the "something real" part, not all metaphors are valid, nor do all of them arise from that experience. Some are especially pernicious and awful. The God of traditional Christian theology is among the worst.

So, how do you determine which metaphors are valid?

 

[Cammmpbell]

God is nothing like you describe.

I agree, he's not. That's the point.

God did not make man imperfect.

A being who lacks the knowledge of good and evil is certainly imperfect.

God punishes non-believers.

This is exactly the idea I'm talking about. A God who punishes ANYONE -- let alone a person whose only crime is to use his own brain and good sense -- by making him scream forever in horrible torture is a monstrous, evil, bloodthirsty tyrant.

It is simply not a credible statement that such a monster is God.

God is a figment generated by and from the developing imagination of primitive mankind. Why would a loving, caring god turn over the only keys to the kingdom to a bunch of ignorant, stone age people who believed in witchcraft and thought the earth was flat.

 

[Dragon]

So, how do you determine which metaphors are valid?

Hard to explain, but the first step is best illustrated by an image from the Illuminatus trilogy, which you have probably read, I'll bet.

In Hagbard Celine's yellow submarine was a depiction of awe-struck primitive men watching the Hand of God emerging from the clouds and writing with a finger of fire on a stone tablet the words:

"Think for yourself, schmuck!"

Without a mind free of doctrinal chains and open both to spiritual experience and creative thought, it is usually* impossible for a human being to achieve awareness of the divine. And that's my biggest beef with traditional Christianity: It's a fearsome attempt to shackle the mind of man, threatening horrible punishment beyond conception if the mind strays into questioning of the dogma.

Let others argue that God is an irrational concept or that there is no evidence in favor of Him. I'm more interested, at least on this thread, in the consequences of the belief from a moral and spiritual perspective. And the God of traditional Christian theology is, very simply, a monstrous, evil, bloodthirsty tyrant. As to whether a monstrous, evil, bloodthirsty tyrant is a good metaphor for the Sacred, I leave that to individual judgment with considerable confidence.


* There have been a few notable exceptions to prove that it isn't ALWAYS impossible: St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avilla. Testament to the power of the human spirit, or of God within us, to overcome even the most difficult boundaries. But I'm all for making it easier.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you're a fast reader this won't take long. Make note that Jefferson left out the miracles, the divinity, the trinity and resurrection:

Yes I know all about the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed in "a Creator". He was not a traditional Christian but he had a spirituality about him and a belief in a higher power. Note I said that the founders (and again...there were other founders aside from Jefferson believe it or not) endorsed "religion", not necessarily "Christianity". Now if you are going to sit there are try and argue that religion was not of paramount importance to these men I suggest you read the first fucking line from the first Amendment to the Constitution. The very first thing they guaranteed to the American people was that government would not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion. Guns was second. Now if you wish to sit there and bash religion, knock yourself out. On some points I will even join you, but to sit there and suggest that the founders were anti-religion puts you in roughly the same category of credibility as the spotted owl society.

 

[Cammmpbell]

If you're a fast reader this won't take long. Make note that Jefferson left out the miracles, the divinity, the trinity and resurrection:

Yes I know all about the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed in "a Creator". He was not a traditional Christian but he had a spirituality about him and a belief in a higher power. Note I said that the founders (and again...there were other founders aside from Jefferson believe it or not) endorsed "religion", not necessarily "Christianity". Now if you are going to sit there are try and argue that religion was not of paramount importance to these men I suggest you read the first fucking line from the first Amendment to the Constitution. The very first thing they guaranteed to the American people was that government would not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion. Guns was second. Now if you wish to sit there and bash religion, knock yourself out. On some points I will even join you, but to sit there and suggest that the founders were anti-religion puts you in roughly the same category of credibility as the spotted owl society.

Basically....none of the forebears accepted the bible.

The "God of Nature" to which they referred in the declaration of independence was more akin to the "Great Spirit" worshipped by the American Indian..........ironic isn't it.

 

[BluePhantom]

So, much of this thread seems to be a debate over what god is 'really' like. But isn't that essentially up to the individual believer? Or are you all assuming that there is only one God and that everyone else is just wrong?

I hesitate to respond to this because it's going to open up one serious can of worms. Yes the nature of God is up to the individual believer but I have to agree with Dragon that Christianity has a pretty bad history when it comes to placing the spiritual interests of mankind over the church's political and financial interests. This started pretty early actually. I would argue that Paul was the first guy to really start screwing it up so we're talking just shortly after Jesus died.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, then it really started to get fucked up. Constantine was a Roman and like any other Roman he wanted order, he wanted efficiency, and he wanted obedience. As a result the Christianity that exited the First Council of Nicaea was quite different than the Christianity that entered it.

Through the years...hell...all the way up to the Reformation and certainly even beyond...it just got worse and worse. The church would only allow Bibles to be written in latin and they did this for a reason. Only members of the clergy and nobility spoke latin. This way the peasants could not read the Bible themselves and as such they were forced to simply accept whatever the church and the crown told them. Having a Bible in a common language was punishable by death.

When the Tyndale Bible came out in English and was eventually embraced by Henry VIII it was the first time an average Joe could read scripture. This was very bad news for the church because the last thing they wanted was an educated following. So they did something far more devious. They began to mistranslate certain parts of the Bible in order to support their political goals. They used the tradition of Midrash to fill in gaps in scriptures that completely changed the meaning. They flat out re-wrote the Bible.

This was nothing new actually. Anytime scripture was copied there were variations. The number of the beast for example: is it 666 or is it 616? Well it depends on which version you are looking at. If you are looking at the earliest versions it's 616 (Caligula?), and if you are looking at later versions it's 666 (Nero?). Most scholars believe it was changed to reflect who happened to be in power at the time.

The point is that in their lust for power and domination the church has rewritten, misrepresented, and completely manipulated scripture and interpretations. They did it from almost day one and they're still doing it today. So the question becomes "if the nature of God and the true will of God is to be left to the individual to determine, how can the individual accomplish that when the church has distorted everything so dramatically?"

I will let Dragon speak for himself, but I am guessing that the point he is trying to make is that Christianity today is almost certainly not what God or Jesus had in mind. That's something I would very strongly agree with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a fucking idiot.

I always know I have won when someone calls me a moron or an idiot. I've had three IQ tests during my lifetime...in the Oak Ridge, TN high school, in OCS training in the army and once by mensa in Knoxville, TN. Average score......129.

I suggest you look up the description of an idiot or a moron. You might consider adding imbecile to your attacks...that would be equally impressive.

You are probably lying about your iq score. You have not won anything. You prove your stupidity all the time.

That's a pretty good summation

 

[Douger]

Dragon--

You may be looking for God in all the wrong places.

Come and check out the Testimony in Song thread here in the Religion forum.

It's got something for everyone.

sky

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgFDv_4oKsw]Eddie murphy - Saturday Night Live.- Buckwheat - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BluePhantom]

If you're a fast reader this won't take long. Make note that Jefferson left out the miracles, the divinity, the trinity and resurrection:

Yes I know all about the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed in "a Creator". He was not a traditional Christian but he had a spirituality about him and a belief in a higher power. Note I said that the founders (and again...there were other founders aside from Jefferson believe it or not) endorsed "religion", not necessarily "Christianity". Now if you are going to sit there are try and argue that religion was not of paramount importance to these men I suggest you read the first fucking line from the first Amendment to the Constitution. The very first thing they guaranteed to the American people was that government would not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion. Guns was second. Now if you wish to sit there and bash religion, knock yourself out. On some points I will even join you, but to sit there and suggest that the founders were anti-religion puts you in roughly the same category of credibility as the spotted owl society.

Basically....none of the forebears accepted the bible.

The "God of Nature" to which they referred in the declaration of independence was more akin to the "Great Spirit" worshipped by the American Indian..........ironic isn't it.

Oh now they worshiped sky spirits....ok pal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you're a fast reader this won't take long. Make note that Jefferson left out the miracles, the divinity, the trinity and resurrection:

Yes I know all about the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed in "a Creator". He was not a traditional Christian but he had a spirituality about him and a belief in a higher power. Note I said that the founders (and again...there were other founders aside from Jefferson believe it or not) endorsed "religion", not necessarily "Christianity". Now if you are going to sit there are try and argue that religion was not of paramount importance to these men I suggest you read the first fucking line from the first Amendment to the Constitution. The very first thing they guaranteed to the American people was that government would not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion. Guns was second. Now if you wish to sit there and bash religion, knock yourself out. On some points I will even join you, but to sit there and suggest that the founders were anti-religion puts you in roughly the same category of credibility as the spotted owl society.

Basically....none of the forebears accepted the bible.

The "God of Nature" to which they referred in the declaration of independence was more akin to the "Great Spirit" worshipped by the American Indian..........ironic isn't it.

You can repeat a lie to yourself so many times you start to believe it. But most people with knowledge of American history realizes that your version is just a basic lie.

 

[hortysir]

So, much of this thread seems to be a debate over what god is 'really' like. But isn't that essentially up to the individual believer? Or are you all assuming that there is only one God and that everyone else is just wrong?

I am always amused by watching mere humans trying to put God in a box.

 

[amrchaos]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

And...there is only one way to verify anything in the bible...by reading more of the bible. The Jews wrote it and they don't even believe the new testament. Only a small group of close family and friends ever made mention of Jesus and virgin birth, savior of mankind, holy ghost, walking on water, healing leprosy by touching, raising from the dead, crucifiction, resurrection etc.

Moses was named the author of five books of the old testament and they are written in third person. One has to wonder who that mystery writer was who stood there by the burning bush and watched and heard god and Moses discussing things like the ten commandements.

The Jews wrote the old testament.

The people that wrote the new Testament were not what one would consider "Jews". They were apart of the Cult of Christ, which merged with the Cult of John the Baptist and tried desperately to convince peole that Jesus was the Messiah through their own interpretation of events of their time.

Regardless of what the "Jews for Jesus" and their ilk claims, you are no longer practicing Judaism if you believe in the New Testament. Regardless of the rituals you maintain, regardless of your heritage, you are Christian if you believe in the words and theology proposed in the New Testament.

 

[amrchaos]

By the way--the "God of nature" is a diplomatic way of saying "Your God". It can refer to Jesus, or Allah, or the god of Abraham or even Shiva.

Our forefathers intentionally left out Atheists and Agnostics because they consider us too insignificant to be bothered with. They basically said "screw the non-theists! What are they going to do, Bitch, moan, Occupy a park until it smells like a fertilized field? Until the Atheists can prove themselves a viable political force, they can kiss our collective butts!!"


Sad, but true.

 

[hortysir]

I mean the God of traditional Christian theology, of course. Consider:

1) He made human beings fallible, then expected them to be perfect.

2) Because they sought the knowledge of good and evil -- that is, tried to develop a conscience -- he condemned not only those who did this, but all of their descendants, to be tortured forever and ever.

3) For thousands of years, everyone (with perhaps a very few exceptions -- theory isn't clear on this) were sentenced to be tortured forever and ever, since he had designed everyone to be perfect but judged them according to an unachievable standard.

4) After thousands of years and millions of victims, who were screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, doubtless to his pleasure and satisfaction, he sent his son to assume human form and be tortured to death. Apparently, although we're not told why, this was sufficient to appease the divine blood-lust.

5) Meanwhile, all those millions of victims continued to scream endlessly under horrible torture.

6) Although Jesus' being whipped with cords studded with sharp metal so that his flesh was ripped apart and then nailed to a piece of wood to die slowly over several hours supposedly appeased the divine sadism, most people continued to be condemned to scream forever under horrible tortures, as the only ones who could take advantage of Jesus' being abused in this way were those who believed in this story (which was offered without evidence) and submitted to the authority of the Church. (Although there is some dispute about that last minor point.)

This, we are told, is the creator of the universe, perfectly good, perfectly wise, and all-powerful. We are asked to believe that the sublime all-in-all is worse by far than any mere human despot, who must be content with torturing people for only finite amounts of time.

In fairness, it's not unlikely that someone like Torquemada or Hitler would have had people screaming endlessly under horrible tortures, too, were that humanly possible. So perhaps God is not actually morally worse than the worst examples of human depravity, but merely endowed with power that gives his depravity more dreadful consequences.

Be that as it may, it is reasonable to question whether this conception of God makes any sense -- and by that I mean, on this occasion, not logical or scientific sense, but moral sense.

Whenever I hear the statement, "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son," and I remember the divine blood-lust and cruelty and smarmy pretense that is supposed to accompany this "gift," I want to puke.

And...there is only one way to verify anything in the bible...by reading more of the bible. The Jews wrote it and they don't even believe the new testament. Only a small group of close family and friends ever made mention of Jesus and virgin birth, savior of mankind, holy ghost, walking on water, healing leprosy by touching, raising from the dead, crucifiction, resurrection etc.

Moses was named the author of five books of the old testament and they are written in third person. One has to wonder who that mystery writer was who stood there by the burning bush and watched and heard god and Moses discussing things like the ten commandements.

The Jews wrote the old testament.

The people that wrote the new Testament were not what one would consider "Jews". They were apart of the Cult of Christ, which merged with the Cult of John the Baptist and tried desperately to convince peole that Jesus was the Messiah through their own interpretation of events of their time.

Regardless of what the "Jews for Jesus" and their ilk claims, you are no longer practicing Judaism if you believe in the New Testament. Regardless of the rituals you maintain, regardless of your heritage, you are Christian if you believe in the words and theology proposed in the New Testament.

In what ways does Jesus' teachings contradict Judaism?

 

[koshergrl]

So, much of this thread seems to be a debate over what god is 'really' like. But isn't that essentially up to the individual believer? Or are you all assuming that there is only one God and that everyone else is just wrong?

I hesitate to respond to this because it's going to open up one serious can of worms. Yes the nature of God is up to the individual believer but I have to agree with Dragon that Christianity has a pretty bad history when it comes to placing the spiritual interests of mankind over the church's political and financial interests. This started pretty early actually. I would argue that Paul was the first guy to really start screwing it up so we're talking just shortly after Jesus died.

When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome, then it really started to get fucked up. Constantine was a Roman and like any other Roman he wanted order, he wanted efficiency, and he wanted obedience. As a result the Christianity that exited the First Council of Nicaea was quite different than the Christianity that entered it.

Through the years...hell...all the way up to the Reformation and certainly even beyond...it just got worse and worse. The church would only allow Bibles to be written in latin and they did this for a reason. Only members of the clergy and nobility spoke latin. This way the peasants could not read the Bible themselves and as such they were forced to simply accept whatever the church and the crown told them. Having a Bible in a common language was punishable by death.

When the Tyndale Bible came out in English and was eventually embraced by Henry VIII it was the first time an average Joe could read scripture. This was very bad news for the church because the last thing they wanted was an educated following. So they did something far more devious. They began to mistranslate certain parts of the Bible in order to support their political goals. They used the tradition of Midrash to fill in gaps in scriptures that completely changed the meaning. They flat out re-wrote the Bible.

This was nothing new actually. Anytime scripture was copied there were variations. The number of the beast for example: is it 666 or is it 616? Well it depends on which version you are looking at. If you are looking at the earliest versions it's 616 (Caligula?), and if you are looking at later versions it's 666 (Nero?). Most scholars believe it was changed to reflect who happened to be in power at the time.

The point is that in their lust for power and domination the church has rewritten, misrepresented, and completely manipulated scripture and interpretations. They did it from almost day one and they're still doing it today. So the question becomes "if the nature of God and the true will of God is to be left to the individual to determine, how can the individual accomplish that when the church has distorted everything so dramatically?"

I will let Dragon speak for himself, but I am guessing that the point he is trying to make is that Christianity today is almost certainly not what God or Jesus had in mind. That's something I would very strongly agree with.

And of course you know the mind of God and Jesus.

As does Dragon, who hates Christians, spends his spare time taunting them, and has stated ad nauseum that he doesn't believe in God.

Got it.

 

[koshergrl]

If you're a fast reader this won't take long. Make note that Jefferson left out the miracles, the divinity, the trinity and resurrection:

Yes I know all about the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed in "a Creator". He was not a traditional Christian but he had a spirituality about him and a belief in a higher power. Note I said that the founders (and again...there were other founders aside from Jefferson believe it or not) endorsed "religion", not necessarily "Christianity". Now if you are going to sit there are try and argue that religion was not of paramount importance to these men I suggest you read the first fucking line from the first Amendment to the Constitution. The very first thing they guaranteed to the American people was that government would not interfere with their freedom to practice their religion. Guns was second. Now if you wish to sit there and bash religion, knock yourself out. On some points I will even join you, but to sit there and suggest that the founders were anti-religion puts you in roughly the same category of credibility as the spotted owl society.

Basically....none of the forebears accepted the bible.

The "God of Nature" to which they referred in the declaration of independence was more akin to the "Great Spirit" worshipped by the American Indian..........ironic isn't it.

Wow. And I thought you were stupid before.

Apparently there's no bottoming out with you..

 

[BluePhantom]

And of course you know the mind of God and Jesus.

As does Dragon, who hates Christians, spends his spare time taunting them, and has stated ad nauseum that he doesn't believe in God.

Got it.

Go find anywhere, where I said I know the mind of God. I stated that modern Christianity is almost certainly not what they had in mind. I do leave the door open for the possibility that I may be wrong which is a hell of a lot more than most people do. I also state several times in this and other threads that we will not know for sure until we die. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, whatever. You are ALMOST certain you know the mind of God. Got it.