• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

God overcompensating

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
11,213
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Could the Bibles insistence on forgiveness just be God's overcompensation for being such a childish dick about the fruit and Noha's flood. And he's just shy about admitting wrongdoing.

Is the Abrahamic God a the divine equivalent of Donald Trump. Just a super insecure and childish bloke with way too much influence and power?
 
But the fruit and the big washout happened in the O.T. -- in the N.T. his kid appears with the amazing message that if you're not on board, or if your parents wore turbans and burkas, you'll be kept alive in a state of eternal torment.
 
But the fruit and the big washout happened in the O.T. -- in the N.T. his kid appears with the amazing message that if you're not on board, or if your parents wore turbans and burkas, you'll be kept alive in a state of eternal torment.

Yup. No sense of proportion. Typical for overcompensators.
 
Never quite followed the logic of Christ being a forgive all sins sacrifice. If I kill you wife, how does it figure that I can be forgiven for it by a third party? Isn't the only person who has the right to forgive me, the person I wronged. (killed)
 
Never quite followed the logic of Christ being a forgive all sins sacrifice. If I kill you wife, how does it figure that I can be forgiven for it by a third party? Isn't the only person who has the right to forgive me, the person I wronged. (killed)

Historically, I'm not sure the forgiveness of sin had anything to do with Jesus. IIRC, until the third or fourth century sin was unforgiveable, until Christian leaders realised that this was politically disadvantageous.
 
Look who is anthropomorphising God now.

I think the reason why God comes across as so human is because he's an invention by humans.

The point is that when an atheist says your God can't do this or your God's actions don't make sense, they themselves are also anthropomorphising.

The atheist who says God is cruel or selfish or vane (or overcompensating) is projecting from within their own human perspective. And this is true even if the atheist asserts there is no such thing as God. You're still imagining what you believe God would be like if He exists. You're disputing the anthropomorphism of the person who says God is loving and gracious by inserting your own contradictory anthropomorphism.

If we were horses we might see God in equine terms but the anti-theist horse is going to describe 'horse god' as a powerless stupid Shetland pony and the God-fearing horse is going to think in terms of a noble stallion.

So the next time you are inclined to attack a certain aspect of God's nature just ask yourself, am I just doing the atheist version of anthropomorphism and describing God in a way that suits the atheist image of God.
 
Jehovah, who Lion RC seems unwilling to name, was cobbled together from various aspects of earlier tribal war-gods - Baal, El and Ashera IIRC.
He spends no end of time and trouble describing Himself in the most vain and glowing terms -- something He shares with Mr Trump.
Christians obviously have difficulty with Jehovah being such a nasty bastard, which is why they just use the general term "God."
 
On the subject of forgiveness, I have read that Constantine, emperor of Rome, had killed his wife and son, and was looking among the various religions in Rome for one that offered forgiveness. He had no takers until one sect saw a fiscal opportunity, and offered to intercede with their god on his behalf. For a small fee.
This sect became the Catholic Church, and went on to offer a wider portfolio of heavenly favours for those who could afford to pay.

It would not surprise me if other religions were slow to follow this lead, as Rousseau suggests.
 
Last edited:
I think the reason why God comes across as so human is because he's an invention by humans.

The point is that when an atheist says your God can't do this or your God's actions don't make sense, they themselves are also anthropomorphising.

The atheist who says God is cruel or selfish or vane (or overcompensating) is projecting from within their own human perspective. And this is true even if the atheist asserts there is no such thing as God. You're still imagining what you believe God would be like if He exists. You're disputing the anthropomorphism of the person who says God is loving and gracious by inserting your own contradictory anthropomorphism.

If we were horses we might see God in equine terms but the anti-theist horse is going to describe 'horse god' as a powerless stupid Shetland pony and the God-fearing horse is going to think in terms of a noble stallion.

So the next time you are inclined to attack a certain aspect of God's nature just ask yourself, am I just doing the atheist version of anthropomorphism and describing God in a way that suits the atheist image of God.

What are you talking about? God doesn't actually exist. God is 100% pure human projection. We have no idea how a real God would be or exist. The Bible is clearly just made up stories by humans. Just the fact that the Bible at all speculates on God means they are just making shit up. There's actually evidence in the Bible that God is just made up. When God behaves in a way we can understand then God is such and such. When God doesn't = ineffable. God works in mysterious ways. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either God is understandable or ineffable. If ineffable we know nothing of God or what God wants. That includes whether or not the afterlife exists, heaven or if any of the commandments applies.

Since God is a made up human projection it is entirely fair to speculate on it's behaviour.
 
The point is that when an atheist says your God can't do this or your God's actions don't make sense, they themselves are also anthropomorphising.

The atheist who says God is cruel or selfish or vane (or overcompensating) is projecting from within their own human perspective. And this is true even if the atheist asserts there is no such thing as God. You're still imagining what you believe God would be like if He exists. You're disputing the anthropomorphism of the person who says God is loving and gracious by inserting your own contradictory anthropomorphism.

If we were horses we might see God in equine terms but the anti-theist horse is going to describe 'horse god' as a powerless stupid Shetland pony and the God-fearing horse is going to think in terms of a noble stallion.

So the next time you are inclined to attack a certain aspect of God's nature just ask yourself, am I just doing the atheist version of anthropomorphism and describing God in a way that suits the atheist image of God.

What are you talking about? God doesn't actually exist. God is 100% pure human projection. We have no idea how a real God would be or exist. The Bible is clearly just made up stories by humans. Just the fact that the Bible at all speculates on God means they are just making shit up. There's actually evidence in the Bible that God is just made up. When God behaves in a way we can understand then God is such and such. When God doesn't = ineffable. God works in mysterious ways. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either God is understandable or ineffable. If ineffable we know nothing of God or what God wants. That includes whether or not the afterlife exists, heaven or if any of the commandments applies.

Since God is a made up human projection it is entirely fair to speculate on it's behaviour.

Quite.

If I say that Voldemort is an evil scumbag; or that Tyrion Lannister is a deadset legend, that's not anthropomorphism - it's just fan-fic.

Gods have characters that are defined by their canon (and fans who are literally prepared to kill over what is or is not canon); and then there's a personal take on what their characters are that differs from person to person.

This applies whether the individual reader or viewer shares the delusion that their favourite character is non-fiction, or not.

I can talk about gods, or even about a particular God - the God of the Roman Catholic Church, for example - without having to accept them as anything other than fictional. Declaring Harry Potter to be a coward might well be controversial; but it's not an admission of his real existence as a non-fictional entity.

The atheist images of God are as numerous as atheists themselves; but they share the fact that God is a palimpsest character (or characters) amongst the vast array of fictional characters invented by people since before the beginning of recorded history.

It's never been necessary for a character to be real in order to talk about what he does, is, or wants.
 
I can talk about gods, or even about a particular God - the God of the Roman Catholic Church, for example - without having to accept them as anything other than fictional. Declaring Harry Potter to be a coward might well be controversial; but it's not an admission of his real existence as a non-fictional entity.

Yes, and it is also valuable. I am an atheist. But I think religions are valuable. They have figured out that humans aren't rational beings. If you want to change people you can't just tell them the truth and assume everything will be accepted and be fine. If you want to connect with people in a meaningful way you've got to wrap it up in stories that move us emotionally. I'm saying stories. Not lies. Just like any fiction stories are vehicles of communicating a much deeper truth.

I've spent the last ten years studying religions and religious texts in depth. Especially pagan religion. I find it striking how much wisdom there is in there. In most religions the gods have complex personalities and traits. If you want to do something specific the gods can give tried and tested modes of doing it.

Examples. The Norse god Víðarr is the god of revenge and silence. The lesson is simple. If you plan to take revenge, keep your trap shut about it. Don't advertise it. Just do it. Completely applicable to today's society. Buddhist gods are similar. Sariputta is the god of caring and humility. Ie, when you care about someone in pain, don't assume you know what they're going through and that you know what they need. Just pay attention and be humble. Great advice. Buddhist gods also never "existed" in a way that is meaningful in the atheist/theist dichotomy. They are all aspects of ourselves. We all have these gods. Whether or not that implies anything supernatural is never mentioned.

What annoys me about contemporary major religions that we deal with in the west, ie Abrahamic religions, is that they're so incredibly shallow and childish. It's the dumbest theology for any religion in the history of humanity. The best metaphor is that it's a penis in the sky. The Christian God is nothing but the perfect father. Someone who we can trust to fix everything for us, as long as we just stay loyal. If we go to the traditional theistic route, what qualities does that invoke in us? Passivity, submissiveness, incredulity and intellectual rot. It's a truly worthless kind of religion.

Here's a popular Christian quote "God helps those who help themselves". Do you think it comes from Christianity? Of course not. It's a pagan saying.

I'm not saying there's only bad things in Christianity. But I am saying that every other religion does the same things better. The only thing Christianity does better is that it's a simpler kind of faith. Any moron can get it. Which undoubtedly explains it's success. Which brings me back to my first point. Religion is about engaging our emotions. Which Christianity does excellently. But Christianity only does that. It has no content. It's 100% packaging. It just strokes our ego and tells us everything will be fine. And most importantly, we don't have to do anything. Who wouldn't like to hear that?
 
I can talk about gods, or even about a particular God - the God of the Roman Catholic Church, for example - without having to accept them as anything other than fictional. Declaring Harry Potter to be a coward might well be controversial; but it's not an admission of his real existence as a non-fictional entity.

Yes, and it is also valuable. I am an atheist. But I think religions are valuable. They have figured out that humans aren't rational beings. If you want to change people you can't just tell them the truth and assume everything will be accepted and be fine. If you want to connect with people in a meaningful way you've got to wrap it up in stories that move us emotionally. I'm saying stories. Not lies. Just like any fiction stories are vehicles of communicating a much deeper truth.

I've spent the last ten years studying religions and religious texts in depth. Especially pagan religion. I find it striking how much wisdom there is in there. In most religions the gods have complex personalities and traits. If you want to do something specific the gods can give tried and tested modes of doing it.

Examples. The Norse god Víðarr is the god of revenge and silence. The lesson is simple. If you plan to take revenge, keep your trap shut about it. Don't advertise it. Just do it. Completely applicable to today's society. Buddhist gods are similar. Sariputta is the god of caring and humility. Ie, when you care about someone in pain, don't assume you know what they're going through and that you know what they need. Just pay attention and be humble. Great advice. Buddhist gods also never "existed" in a way that is meaningful in the atheist/theist dichotomy. They are all aspects of ourselves. We all have these gods. Whether or not that implies anything supernatural is never mentioned.

What annoys me about contemporary major religions that we deal with in the west, ie Abrahamic religions, is that they're so incredibly shallow and childish. It's the dumbest theology for any religion in the history of humanity. The best metaphor is that it's a penis in the sky. The Christian God is nothing but the perfect father. Someone who we can trust to fix everything for us, as long as we just stay loyal. If we go to the traditional theistic route, what qualities does that invoke in us? Passivity, submissiveness, incredulity and intellectual rot. It's a truly worthless kind of religion.

Here's a popular Christian quote "God helps those who help themselves". Do you think it comes from Christianity? Of course not. It's a pagan saying.

I'm not saying there's only bad things in Christianity. But I am saying that every other religion does the same things better. The only thing Christianity does better is that it's a simpler kind of faith. Any moron can get it. Which undoubtedly explains it's success. Which brings me back to my first point. Religion is about engaging our emotions. Which Christianity does excellently. But Christianity only does that. It has no content. It's 100% packaging. It just strokes our ego and tells us everything will be fine. And most importantly, we don't have to do anything. Who wouldn't like to hear that?

Yup.

Terry Pratchett got it right when he said that humans need a new name for themselves.

Homo Sapiens - lit. 'The Wise Man' not only lacks humility, but also subscribes to an unjustifiable taxonomical division.

Far better we should call ourselves Pan Narrans - 'The Storytelling Ape'. It puts us in the right genus, and the species identifier is FAR more accurate.
 
On the subject of forgiveness, I have read that Constantine, emperor of Rome, had killed his wife and son, and was looking among the various religions in Rome for one that offered forgiveness. He had no takers until one sect saw a fiscal opportunity, and offered to intercede with their god on his behalf. For a small fee.
This sect became the Catholic Church, and went on to offer a wider portfolio of heavenly favours for those who could afford to pay.

It would not surprise me if other religions were slow to follow this lead, as Rousseau suggests.

I think Helena had more to do with the growth of the religion than Constantine. As you stated Constantine's actions were anything but Christian.
 
Jehovah predates all gods. If He didn't biblical theists would quite rightly place Him in the same category as Baal, Ra, Isis, Thor, Loki...
 
Jehovah predates all gods. If He didn't biblical theists would quite rightly place Him in the same category as Baal, Ra, Isis, Thor, Loki...

Ehe... what? The polytheistic Jehova is from about 500 BC. Which is a completely different God than in the modern Christian Bible. Radically different. Jehova started out as being the god of war and masculinity. Only. Between 500 BC and 70 AD the Jewish Jehova gradually evolved. What this means in practice is that Jehova step by step absorbed the qualities of other gods.

Aristotle was born 384 BC. He invented the unmoved mover theory. Ie, he invented the kernel of which later became the Christian God concept. God cannot be older than this. Philo of Alexandria was born 25 BC. He was the one who merged Greek philosophy with Jewish theology. Which later evolved into both Christianity and Pharisaic Judaism (modern monotheistic Judaism). Again... the Christian God cannot be older than this.

The Christian God concept is one of the youngest that exist. There's about 6000 known gods, 5999 that predate the Christian God. So again... what do you mean with that God predates all gods. How is that even hypothetically possible?
 
Lion IRC has spoken bilby, so it must be true.
He is certain, after all.....
Jehovah predates ALL gods.
Even though in Genesis the Almighty makes it clear that He is one of a number of Gods, male and female.
I'm afraid Lion IRC is just another one who hasn't bothered to read the Instruction Manual.
His confidence to argue with those who have, cometh from the Lord.
It will be neverending.

Thanks OLDMAN, I know nothing of Helena's influence on the growth of Christianity, and it's an interesting avenue for me to follow.
I associate Constantine with the inception, rather than the later progress, which I assume was not uniform.
And boiling his wife was beyond rude ....
I find the tent-maker's influence on the Church the most interesting of all.
And I would say to Lion IRC, what he said to the men of Athens --"Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you".
 
Back
Top Bottom