Would you, then, look at God different?

[Magnetic]

This is a "what if" thread.

What if the writting in the Old Testiment (about God causing plagues, deaths, sending a maurading Jewish army, causing a world wide flood, etc.) were not a true depiction of who God is, but rather the writings of a few men, . . . . . . . what if the writings of Paul about women being submissive were just his own opinion only, . . . . .what if the idea of non-believers go to an Eternal Hell were not God's words, but placed in there by man, . . . .etc. . .

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

[Elheru Aran]

In this case, why believe that there is a God at all, as the only accounts of him are from a bunch of loosely connected writings by various prophets and scribes of a tribal group situated in the Middle East? It does not follow...

[Surlethe]

This is a "what if" thread.

What if the writting in the Old Testiment (about God causing plagues, deaths, sending a maurading Jewish army, causing a world wide flood, etc.) were not a true depiction of who God is, but rather the writings of a few men, . . . . . . . what if the writings of Paul about women being submissive were just his own opinion only, . . . . .what if the idea of non-believers go to an Eternal Hell were not God's words, but placed in there by man, . . . .etc. . .

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

This is actually the view I take when approaching Biblical interpretation. This God is the God in whom I believe, and the God whom I worship as a Christian.

[dworkin]

I'ld veiw it as an impotent gimboid. Any divine being who cant keep a pack of bronze and early iron age primitives in check is truly feeble.

[General Zod]

This is a "what if" thread.

What if the writting in the Old Testiment (about God causing plagues, deaths, sending a maurading Jewish army, causing a world wide flood, etc.) were not a true depiction of who God is, but rather the writings of a few men, . . . . . . . what if the writings of Paul about women being submissive were just his own opinion only, . . . . .what if the idea of non-believers go to an Eternal Hell were not God's words, but placed in there by man, . . . .etc. . .

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

I wouldn't see what the point would be. You may as well create a brand new god from scratch if you're going to change it that much.

[Morilore]

This is a "what if" thread.

What if the writting in the Old Testiment (about God causing plagues, deaths, sending a maurading Jewish army, causing a world wide flood, etc.) were not a true depiction of who God is, but rather the writings of a few men, . . . . . . . what if the writings of Paul about women being submissive were just his own opinion only, . . . . .what if the idea of non-believers go to an Eternal Hell were not God's words, but placed in there by man, . . . .etc. . .

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

Then... what?

How would we even know of his existence? How would we know that he expressed "love for mankind?" How are we supposed to deal with the Problem of Evil, which occurs regardless of this beneficient God's behavior?

I think you're asking "What would we think of God if we thought what liberal Christians think of God?" Kinda silly.

[Magnetic]

To add to, or to make clearer, God is real, but those who wrote down the information in the Bible misunderstood or completely got it wrong. In other words, the 6-day creation, the global flood, and the like were parables, not supposed to be remembered as a literal event.

This also, when the Israelites did well in battle, they assumed that they were doing God's will, or that God was condoning their actions with such a blessing. When they did poorly in battle, or a plague/disease hit, they assumed that they were doing something sinful, thus God was punishing them.

These are the things I'm talking about. Not necessarily changing the religion, but the idea that many of the writings were misinterpretations of what God was wanting them to understand.

[Stark]

How do we recieve this 'god is real' information? Frankly, he'd have to make a public appearance in Madison Square: visions and parables aren't going to convince anyone.

Regardless, this god would either be a) powerless and thus meaningless or b) supporting or condoning the disgusting behaviour of it's worshippers, and thus should be thrown up on charges and imprisioned. Accessory ... to everything!

[NecronLord]

How do we recieve this 'god is real' information? Frankly, he'd have to make a public appearance in Madison Square: visions and parables aren't going to convince anyone.

L Ron Hubbard convinces people, visions and parables are comparatively classy.

[FedRebel]

This is a "what if" thread.

What if the writting in the Old Testiment (about God causing plagues, deaths, sending a maurading Jewish army, causing a world wide flood, etc.) were not a true depiction of who God is,

The Bible is said to be "the word of God", if it is proven that it is not "the word" then how can God exist, if the sole piece of evidence for his existance is proven invalid

but rather the writings of a few men, . . . . . . . what if the writings of Paul about women being submissive were just his own opinion only, . . . . .what if the idea of non-believers go to an Eternal Hell were not God's words, but placed in there by man, . . . .etc. . .

That is the truth about the Bible

They wrote the scriptures the way they did to force others into doing what they wanted them to do.

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

If the Bible is null and void, then there is no evidence that a supernatural being did anything at all.

[CaptJodan]

I've actually asked myself this question, and done some of that soul searching in terms of what Surlethe was doing.

But I ran into a problem. While this OP states that we know the attrocities that God made were all made up by a bunch of nutjob writers, we have no evidence that he DOESN'T condone those actions, nor do we have any evidence of his devine love either. If you call into question what was written about these atrocities, (and God's horrible sense of the physical universe at large) then you have to also question the rest of the Bible, including any good deeds he may be capable of.

If we assume that the authors got God's love right, and got God's other motives wrong....IE he really is an all loving being, then I still think we run into problems. It all comes back to one question: WHY THE FLYING FUCK ARE WE HERE?! An all loving, all merciful, all graceful God wouldn't have need to set us on this Earth to suffer through our lives. According to the church, we're the example to everyone else that you'd better not fuck with God. The very basis of our existence hinges on the fact that sin exists and that God is cruel by focing us to live lives of pain and death for.....what? If you take away the sin aspect of it, if you take away Hell and the concequences for your actions, what do you have left?

You WOULD have to reinvent Christianity, because the very motive of why God is making us live this way (as opposed to in Heaven with the angels) has to be different. He's no longer creating a cosmic entertainment center for the rest of those watching to see how sin affects them so clearly something else is going on. What is it? I think you have to somehow answer what this kinder, gentler God's motives are before I can possibly have my opinion changed.

[wolveraptor]

He'd still be evil for allowing hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wars, diseases and pain to exist. Notice that every good thing that has happened to man beyond mere existance is due to man's work and effort and sweat.

[EmperorSolo51]

The Bible is said to be "the word of God", if it is proven that it is not "the word" then how can God exist, if the sole piece of evidence for his existance is proven invalid.

That's from a Protestant Point of view. Froma More Rational point of view, we catholics believe that the Bible carries the Word of God but is not neccessarily the absolute Word of God as Christ is the Word of God.

If the Bible is null and void, then there is no evidence that a supernatural being did anything at all.

Well then we would still have the writings of the Early Church fathers as well as Sacred Tradition to carry on.

[Zero]

I would be quite confused as to the true nature and intentions of this God. Why hasn't he spoken to me? Why has he created the universe as it is?

[CrimsonRaine]

In this case, why believe that there is a God at all, as the only accounts of him are from a bunch of loosely connected writings by various prophets and scribes of a tribal group situated in the Middle East? It does not follow...

Not all beliefs in God come from the Bible. You still would have several other books of writing, even if the Bible did not exist. And of course, there are those, like myself, who do not rely on religious texts or services to believe in a supernatural being.

[brianeyci]

I can somewhat sympathize with God, if he came down and said that our planet just escaped his notice during creation, and all the catastrophies and disasters were just beyond him. Just because he created the universe, doesn't mean he is keeping an eye on it all the time or has the ability to. The universe is a really big place and maybe there were just other holocausts going on.

Also, if you have that much power... this is the counter-argument to humanism, that there may be aliens out there that are so advanced to consider us ants. Extend that to god. What if we are ants to him, his sensory perceptions at such a different level that he cannot know our pain or suffering? Perhaps he thinks us not sentients.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Clarification : I am not refering to the Christian God, but rather god or gods in general and how I would come to see such a god as moral. If one did exist. It's all speculation however, but it's interesting in understanding the views of someone like CrimsonRaine, people who believe in god without reference to religious texts. Yes, it may be a delusion, but I don't see it as a harmful delusion.

Brian

[chaoschristian]

And this is why I've come to understand the Bible as the single most dangerous book in the entire world.

Why?

1. Calling it a book is deceiving - yes it's technically a book, but the deception is that the format leads people into believing that it was written as a single integrated unit. It was not. It is a collection of writings that people long dead decided would be the best way to pass along the story of how man views God. We know that several versions exist depending on the particular tradition. We know some of what was left out; we do not know how much more was left out. Somewhere along the line a great many people's perception of The Bible changed, and they began viewing, reading and interpreting the thing as if it were all one coherent story that could be treated all in the same way. That has lead to inerrancy, literalism and fundamentalism.

2. The book does not give instructions as to how it is to be read, interpreted or viewed. Without relying on the tradition and vast accumulation of knowledge and opinion of the past several centuries it is impossible for the common man to ken the inner-workings of the Bible. It is simply too complex to discern single handedly. Sure, as believers we are taught to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us, but there is no independent measure to guide us to measure success or failure in discernment and interpretation.

3. Related to #2, there is no internal 'guard' in The Bible to ward off or prevent interpretation through cultural proclivity. By that I mean that when anyone reads The Bible they bring too it their own biases, prejudices and cultural paradigm. They Bible itself is not very good at filtering these out. This really hit home this past Sunday when I started a new Bible study on Revelations. Revelations has diametrically opposed outcomes if you are reading from the viewpoint of a privileged person to that of one who is oppressed or not privileged.

4. Related to #1, we stopped adding to it. Sure we have the writings of church elders, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley to name a but a few, but how is it that suddenly God stopped revealing Himself to mankind after the 1st century in such a way as nothing is seen as worthy as being added to the canon? Joseph Campbell said, I believe, that this was the fundamental flaw with the mythos of Christianity, that it had painted itself into a corner in terms being able to creatively reinvent itself for changing times.

The Mormons, however, would not agree with me on this last point. Nor would Muslims too I suspect. Hmmm, gotta think about that.

Regardless, count me as a Christian who wrestles with the nature of the Bible and who has absolutely no answers about any of it.

Now, let's see if this post gets me kicked out of church.

[SirNitram]

You get the idea of what I'm asking. Would you have a different view of a supernatural being who expressed a love for mankind if the above things were just man's own doing? How do you think your view of THIS God would be?

It would require some data on what the hell it's like. We're literally asked to throw out virtually everything in Christian mythology.

If this God loves people, for example, why do <Insert terrible disease, disaster, etc> exist? They bring insurmountable suffering.

What you end up with is either a God who don't care much for humanity, a God whose damned weak(And thus, is he a God?), or a God whose simply gone out for lunch after pushing the 'Big Bang' button.

[Zero]

What you end up with is either a God who don't care much for humanity, a God whose damned weak(And thus, is he a God?), or a God whose simply gone out for lunch after pushing the 'Big Bang' button.

Or a God who simply wants to see what actions we take as a species to improve ourselves. After all, if there is this God, he began life as replicators. Humans are just advanced versions of these. Why remove selective pressures now?

[SirNitram]

What you end up with is either a God who don't care much for humanity, a God whose damned weak(And thus, is he a God?), or a God whose simply gone out for lunch after pushing the 'Big Bang' button.

Or a God who simply wants to see what actions we take as a species to improve ourselves. After all, if there is this God, he began life as replicators. Humans are just advanced versions of these. Why remove selective pressures now?

Then he doesn't give a shit. I included that option for a reason.

[Zero]

What you end up with is either a God who don't care much for humanity, a God whose damned weak(And thus, is he a God?), or a God whose simply gone out for lunch after pushing the 'Big Bang' button.

Or a God who simply wants to see what actions we take as a species to improve ourselves. After all, if there is this God, he began life as replicators. Humans are just advanced versions of these. Why remove selective pressures now?

Then he doesn't give a shit. I included that option for a reason.

Not necessarily. There is a certain value to letting someone figure shit out for himself, right? If you're always there to rescue someone, he comes to depend on you. If there's no dangers to someone, he's never driven by necessity to improve. God may be more concerned with humanity as a whole then individuals, and may believe that disasters that eliminate many individuals may actually better the species as a whole. Or perhaps he simply wants to see how we react and change.

How the hell can you possibly guess at the motivations of something with (apparently) much greater knowledge then ours? Apathy isn't necessarily all it could feel towards us. And this isn't really the same old "God loves us because he says so, and any other claims mean we're too dumb to see his grand plan," because I'm not really asserting that God loves us. I'm just saying that we couldn't begin to guess at the motivations of such a vastly superior being.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How the hell can you possibly guess at the motivations of something with (apparently) much greater knowledge then ours?

Actions speak louder than words; so does inaction. If someone does not help me when I need it, I will regard them as lacking in compassion for me. Maybe I'm wrong, but really, does it matter ? If someone acts uncaring, they might as well be uncaring.

[Morilore]

Not necessarily. There is a certain value to letting someone figure shit out for himself, right? If you're always there to rescue someone, he comes to depend on you. If there's no dangers to someone, he's never driven by necessity to improve. God may be more concerned with humanity as a whole then individuals, and may believe that disasters that eliminate many individuals may actually better the species as a whole. Or perhaps he simply wants to see how we react and change.

Then he's an asshole. You don't have to feel malevolence to be an asshole.

[SirNitram]

Not necessarily. There is a certain value to letting someone figure shit out for himself, right? If you're always there to rescue someone, he comes to depend on you. If there's no dangers to someone, he's never driven by necessity to improve. God may be more concerned with humanity as a whole then individuals, and may believe that disasters that eliminate many individuals may actually better the species as a whole. Or perhaps he simply wants to see how we react and change.

Then why allow the massive technological backslides of our history? The stagnation? The immense die-offs? Or do we just write those off with some stupid, pithy non-answer?

How the hell can you possibly guess at the motivations of something with (apparently) much greater knowledge then ours? Apathy isn't necessarily all it could feel towards us. And this isn't really the same old "God loves us because he says so, and any other claims mean we're too dumb to see his grand plan," because I'm not really asserting that God loves us. I'm just saying that we couldn't begin to guess at the motivations of such a vastly superior being.

Why the fuck not? Seriously, this is such a whiny, theologician-trying-not-to-piss-on-the-book non-answer. Quantify what prevents us from understanding the motivations of a greater being. Don't just say 'It's because he's superior'. Define why that leads to inherent incomprehensibility.