If you were the god of a given religion...

[BluePhantom]

This assumes, of course, that God is subject to the laws of nature and physics He created when designing the universe (I am one of the few I know of who endorses that belief).

Just a quickie thought --

If god is subject to the laws of Nature --- and I'm not disputing that -- then who is the She who makes him a "He"?

According to who's vision of God? I can only answer that according to my personal model of how God interacts with the universe and that's a thread unto itself. I can say that I used to refer to God as She intentionally. I did this to attempt to jerk people out of their pre-conceived notion of God as one thing or the other. You would be amazed at how many people (women included) became absolutely livid by referring to God in a feminine form.

 

[Pogo]

This assumes, of course, that God is subject to the laws of nature and physics He created when designing the universe (I am one of the few I know of who endorses that belief).

Just a quickie thought --

If god is subject to the laws of Nature --- and I'm not disputing that -- then who is the She who makes him a "He"?

According to who's vision of God? I can only answer that according to my personal model of how God interacts with the universe and that's a thread unto itself. I can say that I used to refer to God as She intentionally. I did this to attempt to jerk people out of their pre-conceived notion of God as one thing or the other. You would be amazed at how many people (women included) became absolutely livid by referring to God in a feminine form.

Actually I would no longer be amazed. I do the same thing.


To return to the OP question, if I were a god and forced to exist without a goddess, I'd either be a neuter or I'd be pissed. And if the latter, prolly take out My wrath on the earthlings with famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, plagues and nuclear power accidents. Just enough to lay some weeping and gnashing of teeth on their asses, can't wipe 'em all out because that would leave Me no victims to scourge.

 

[BluePhantom]

This assumes, of course, that God is subject to the laws of nature and physics He created when designing the universe (I am one of the few I know of who endorses that belief).

Just a quickie thought --

If god is subject to the laws of Nature --- and I'm not disputing that -- then who is the She who makes him a "He"?

According to who's vision of God? I can only answer that according to my personal model of how God interacts with the universe and that's a thread unto itself. I can say that I used to refer to God as She intentionally. I did this to attempt to jerk people out of their pre-conceived notion of God as one thing or the other. You would be amazed at how many people (women included) became absolutely livid by referring to God in a feminine form.

Actually I would no longer be amazed. I do the same thing.


To return to the OP question, if I were a god and forced to exist without a goddess, I'd either be a neuter or I'd be pissed. And if the latter, prolly take out My wrath on the earthlings with famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, plagues and nuclear power accidents. Just enough to lay some weeping and gnashing of teeth on their asses, can't wipe 'em all out because that would leave Me no victims to scourge.

DAMN!!!! You don't **** around! Your comment generates a question in my mind (and I certainly mean no insult to you by wondering this aloud - I am assuming you are joking). I wonder if the question by the OP has less to say about the nature of God as much as it has to say about the nature of the individual and perhaps how the individual views God. For example, I wonder if a person who says 'well I would demand worship' is a megalomaniac or simply views God as a vengeful, jealous God who is firm and unyielding. Therefore, they project themselves as God according to their existing image of God.

By contrast, I wonder if a person who says 'I would care for the people' has a softer image of God...perhaps views God as being more loving and tolerant or that that person simply has a softer nature as an individual.

Interesting question

 

[Pogo]

This assumes, of course, that God is subject to the laws of nature and physics He created when designing the universe (I am one of the few I know of who endorses that belief).

Just a quickie thought --

If god is subject to the laws of Nature --- and I'm not disputing that -- then who is the She who makes him a "He"?

According to who's vision of God? I can only answer that according to my personal model of how God interacts with the universe and that's a thread unto itself. I can say that I used to refer to God as She intentionally. I did this to attempt to jerk people out of their pre-conceived notion of God as one thing or the other. You would be amazed at how many people (women included) became absolutely livid by referring to God in a feminine form.

Actually I would no longer be amazed. I do the same thing.


To return to the OP question, if I were a god and forced to exist without a goddess, I'd either be a neuter or I'd be pissed. And if the latter, prolly take out My wrath on the earthlings with famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, plagues and nuclear power accidents. Just enough to lay some weeping and gnashing of teeth on their asses, can't wipe 'em all out because that would leave Me no victims to scourge.

DAMN!!!! You don't **** around! Your comment generates a question in my mind (and I certainly mean no insult to you by wondering this aloud - I am assuming you are joking). I wonder if the question by the OP has less to say about the nature of God as much as it has to say about the nature of the individual and perhaps how the individual views God. For example, I wonder if a person who says 'well I would demand worship' is a megalomaniac or simply views God as a vengeful, jealous God who is firm and unyielding. Therefore, they project themselves as God according to their existing image of God.

By contrast, I wonder if a person who says 'I would care for the people' has a softer image of God...perhaps views God as being more loving and tolerant or that that person simply has a softer nature as an individual.

Interesting question

I think the OP question definitely invites examination of exactly what It is we assembled when we put together this "God" thing, apparently without benefit of assembly manual. Yeah it also invites self-revelation; it does both. I see the first as the more fertile opportunity.

​

 

[BluePhantom]

This assumes, of course, that God is subject to the laws of nature and physics He created when designing the universe (I am one of the few I know of who endorses that belief).

Just a quickie thought --

If god is subject to the laws of Nature --- and I'm not disputing that -- then who is the She who makes him a "He"?

According to who's vision of God? I can only answer that according to my personal model of how God interacts with the universe and that's a thread unto itself. I can say that I used to refer to God as She intentionally. I did this to attempt to jerk people out of their pre-conceived notion of God as one thing or the other. You would be amazed at how many people (women included) became absolutely livid by referring to God in a feminine form.

Actually I would no longer be amazed. I do the same thing.


To return to the OP question, if I were a god and forced to exist without a goddess, I'd either be a neuter or I'd be pissed. And if the latter, prolly take out My wrath on the earthlings with famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, typhoons, tornadoes, plagues and nuclear power accidents. Just enough to lay some weeping and gnashing of teeth on their asses, can't wipe 'em all out because that would leave Me no victims to scourge.

DAMN!!!! You don't **** around! Your comment generates a question in my mind (and I certainly mean no insult to you by wondering this aloud - I am assuming you are joking). I wonder if the question by the OP has less to say about the nature of God as much as it has to say about the nature of the individual and perhaps how the individual views God. For example, I wonder if a person who says 'well I would demand worship' is a megalomaniac or simply views God as a vengeful, jealous God who is firm and unyielding. Therefore, they project themselves as God according to their existing image of God.

By contrast, I wonder if a person who says 'I would care for the people' has a softer image of God...perhaps views God as being more loving and tolerant or that that person simply has a softer nature as an individual.

Interesting question

I think the OP question definitely invites examination of exactly what It is we assembled when we put together this "God" thing, apparently without benefit of assembly manual. Yeah it also invites self-revelation; it does both. I see the first as the more fertile opportunity.

​

Well I think the lack of an assembly manual is precisely why the common image of God has changed so dramatically over time. The God of the New Testament is a far more loving and patient God. The God of the Old Testament is a wrathful ass-kicker who has no problem wiping out mankind whenever He gets a burr up His ass. There's actually a historical explanation for that, but again, that's a thread unto itself that I would rather not get into.

I can say that, according to research by James Fowler, one's image of God has a lot to do with how we are treated as children and the images we see and stories we are told. Children that were raised in an environment that was more distant, strict, and cold generally have an image of God that is more like the Old Testament God while children raised in a more loving, nurturing environment generally see God as He is depicted in the New Testament.

I think what we can say is that, as a society, we create God in our own image according to what is going on at the time and according to how the values and mores of society have changed....or perhaps even how those values and mores differ from culture to culture within the same time frame.

 

[zaangalewa]

... If you think kill and murder are the same thing ask how you can raise livestock for food if you're not allowed to kill it.

Someone can murder an animal for example. But no one is able to 'kill' a human being only because he likes to eat it. "Thou shalt not kill" is much more better. "Never kill" is maybe the shortest and best. Exceptions are only confirming this rule. Suicide is by the way not an exception. It has nothing to do with a real free will if someone likes to do suicide. Specially if someone has the responsibility for 150 passengers.

 

[BluePhantom]

... If you think kill and murder are the same thing ask how you can raise livestock for food if you're not allowed to kill it.

Someone can murder an animal for example. But no one is able to kill a human being only becaue he likes to eat it. "Thou shalt not kill" is much more better. "Never kill" is maybe the shortest and best. Exceptions are only confirming this rule. Suicide is by the way not an exception. Specially if someone has 150 passengers.

"Never kill" may fit your personal ideology, but unfortunately that's not what the Bible says. The Hebrew word in both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 is רצה which means "murder". When taking of life is justified ('killing'), the Hebrew word used is usually הרג such as in Deuteronomy 13:9. Torah differentiates between 'murder' and 'killing' by use of the different words and the context of what is being referred to.

 

[BluePhantom]

ok I am out of here for a while. Great conversation all. Quite interesting. Cheers!

 

[Pogo]

... If you think kill and murder are the same thing ask how you can raise livestock for food if you're not allowed to kill it.

Someone can murder an animal for example. But no one is able to kill a human being only becaue he likes to eat it. "Thou shalt not kill" is much more better. "Never kill" is maybe the shortest and best. Exceptions are only confirming this rule. Suicide is by the way not an exception. Specially if someone has 150 passengers.

"Never kill" may fit your personal ideology, but unfortunately that's not what the Bible says. The Hebrew word in both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 is רצה which means "murder". When taking of life is justified ('killing'), the Hebrew word used is usually הרג such as in Deuteronomy 13:9. Torah differentiates between 'murder' and 'killing' by use of the different words and the context of what is being referred to.

But that's the Holy Babble. The term "never kill", if I read the post correctly, is more at the concept of Ahimsa.

I personally follow Ahimsa but with exceptions. I won't hesitate to squash a fly or mosquito, because they are direct threats by nature. Turn that on entities that are not threats, and you crash your karma.

 

[zaangalewa]

... If you think kill and murder are the same thing ask how you can raise livestock for food if you're not allowed to kill it.

Someone can murder an animal for example. But no one is able to kill a human being only becaue he likes to eat it. "Thou shalt not kill" is much more better. "Never kill" is maybe the shortest and best. Exceptions are only confirming this rule. Suicide is by the way not an exception. Specially if someone has 150 passengers.

"Never kill" may fit your personal ideology,

Some people could misunderstand the word "never" or the word "kill" in the same way how they misunderstand the word "Thou shalt not kill".

but unfortunately that's not what the Bible says. The Hebrew word in both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 is רצה which means "murder".

So if you don't kill then you don't murder - not even an animal - very easy.

When taking of life is justified ('killing'), the Hebrew word used is usually הרג such as in Deuteronomy 13:9. Torah differentiates between 'murder' and 'killing' by use of the different words and the context of what is being referred to.

The bible is not my god. God is my god. Tell me what god said to Moses and wether it is the same what Moses understood and what he and others noticed later again. If I ask the god of life then I have the feeling we should not fight against but for all and every life on no other reason because we are life on our own and we know what sadness is. Isn't it better to be happy than to be sad?

 

[zaangalewa]

... But that's the Holy Babble. The term "never kill", if I read the post correctly, is more at the concept of Ahimsa.

Who? ... No - this is not a person - this means not to be violent. It's normal not to be violent.

I personally follow Ahimsa but with exceptions. I won't hesitate to squash a fly or mosquito,

I never kill - also not a fly or a mosquito. Sometimes happens a little accident - and it's not easy to save the life of insects from time to time. Some are very gracile.

because they are direct threats by nature.

Threats? Try this:

Turn that on entities that are not threats, and you crash your karma.

My karma is not so important for me, although consequences are sometimes painful. I don't misuse the might god gave me - that's all. But I'm not a holy man. I'm only a remarried (=forever excommunicated) Catholic.

 

[Pogo]

... But that's the Holy Babble. The term "never kill", if I read the post correctly, is more at the concept of Ahimsa.

Who? ... No - this is not a person - this means not to be violent. It's normal not to be violent.

I personally follow Ahimsa but with exceptions. I won't hesitate to squash a fly or mosquito,

I never kill - also not a fly or a mosquito. Sometimes happens a little accident - and it's not easy to save the life of insects from time to time. Some are very gracile.

because they are direct threats by nature.

Threats? Try this:

Turn that on entities that are not threats, and you crash your karma.

My karma is not so important for me, although consequences are sometimes painful. I don't misuse the might god gave me - that's all. But I'm not a holy man. I'm only a remarried (=forever excommunicated) Catholic.

That makes sense (the last part). As George Carlin noted, they taught us in Catholic school to think. That's why we left.

 

[BluePhantom]

Who? ... No - this is not a person - this means not to be violent. It's normal not to be violent.

Wow I am not sure I could disagree with you more. I think violence is completely natural. Now let me clarify that by saying that in most nations violence is frowned upon unless necessary, but if you look at the history of mankind it has been a very violent history all the way back to the dawn of mankind. The animal kingdom is absolutely violent. Want to know the most violent person of all? Mother nature...that is one cold hearted serial killer. There is nothing we can do as a human species that could even come close to the death and destruction that ***** has wrought.

Now I agree with you that the world would be a much better place if we didn't kill. Unfortunately, that's just not what our history as a species suggests is realistic. I would certainly not murder someone, but if someone breaks into my house and threatens to harm my children or rape my wife, I am going to shoot that person until he is dead or at least until he is completely, unquestionably down for the count. I applaud your sentiments and I wish we lived in a world where that was possible, but unfortunately I respectfully disagree. There is a time to kill.

 

[BluePhantom]

But that's the Holy Babble. The term "never kill", if I read the post correctly, is more at the concept of Ahimsa.

I personally follow Ahimsa but with exceptions. I won't hesitate to squash a fly or mosquito, because they are direct threats by nature. Turn that on entities that are not threats, and you crash your karma.

Now why the hostility toward the Bible? There's nothing wrong with the Bible. It's the interpretation, or rather the misinterpretation, of the Bible that causes such a headache.

 

[Gracie]

Yes it's been done. So let's do it again.

...What would you do as 'God?' Bear in mind you're subject to whatever commandments the religion has. We'll assume when 'God' kills people for example it's because they did something that was a death-penalty offense so God didn't 'murder' them as much as mete out justice.

You're God, bound to your own commandments, what do you do?

I kill off every human being on the planet and start over. I'd leave the fauna and flora.

 

[Pogo]

But that's the Holy Babble. The term "never kill", if I read the post correctly, is more at the concept of Ahimsa.

I personally follow Ahimsa but with exceptions. I won't hesitate to squash a fly or mosquito, because they are direct threats by nature. Turn that on entities that are not threats, and you crash your karma.

Now why the hostility toward the Bible? There's nothing wrong with the Bible. It's the interpretation, or rather the misinterpretation, of the Bible that causes such a headache.

?
That post wasn't about neither hostility nor the Babble. It was about Ahimsa.

Well OK there was some hostility toward mosquitoes. I don't apologize for that. I kill 'em.

 

[zaangalewa]

... That makes sense (the last part). As George Carlin noted, they taught us in Catholic school to think. That's why we left.

What has this to do with anything what I said? Anticatholicism is a standard in the english speaking world. This has nothing to do with our schools. Wer are educating the children of god - or in political language: free citizens of a free world. Everyone is free to use his talents in good ways or bad ways. That's not a reason not to teach what's good, beautiful and true.

 

[zaangalewa]

... That post wasn't about neither hostility nor the Babble. It was about Ahimsa.

Well OK there was some hostility toward mosquitoes. I don't apologize for that. I kill 'em.

So "Ahimsa" is it to call the bible babble, not to apologize if no one asked for and to kill mosquitos because it's normal to kill mosquitos.

 

[Politico]

Yes it's been done. So let's do it again.

...What would you do as 'God?' Bear in mind you're subject to whatever commandments the religion has. We'll assume when 'God' kills people for example it's because they did something that was a death-penalty offense so God didn't 'murder' them as much as mete out justice.

You're God, bound to your own commandments, what do you do?

I would wipe out anyone who was stupid enough to believe I was a god.

 

[defcon4]

Yes it's been done. So let's do it again.

...What would you do as 'God?' Bear in mind you're subject to whatever commandments the religion has. We'll assume when 'God' kills people for example it's because they did something that was a death-penalty offense so God didn't 'murder' them as much as mete out justice.

You're God, bound to your own commandments, what do you do?

I kill off every human being on the planet and start over. I'd leave the fauna and flora.

It is coming Gracie. Maybe not in our lifetime but the planetary being - Mother Earth - will cleanse this parasitic race off her surface. Cataclysms? Wars? Pandemics? Who knows? Then it starts all over again with a few survivors if that.