Removing Mormonism from History.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not overused for me; I've never actually heard someone explain what a "meme" is. But given what I've seen of you in your comments and other things I'm not at all surprised that you distrust and dislike religions that sort of psychologically bind a member into the religion.

Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of what "meme" means. As for the rest: I'm not just talking about religions that are psychologically binding; I'm talking about what they're binding you to. Some religions just bind you to a certain set of practices and philosophical beliefs that are mostly harmless and sometimes helpful. Others bind you into a capital-C Church dedicated to the task of expanding itself and of using you as a tool to aid in its expansion.

While the former type may well be wrong-headed, they usually aren't dangerous. The latter group are very dangerous and often lead to great evil. They're the social equivalent of von Neumann machines, and left unchecked, they're quite capable of reducing the intellectual landscape to gray goo.
_________

If you're going off that logic, why does God need a Jew to burn animals to repent? Why does He tell them not to eat certain foods (there's no rational reason He would care what His followers eat)? Why do ceremonial washings matter to Him? Why a tenth part if He doesn't need so much as a breadcrumb? I generally chalk up all these rituals that would make no rational difference to a deity as demonstrations of faith but there IS a reasonable explanation.

The best explanation I can come up with is that it's a sort of bizarre team-building exercise. Thou Shalt Not Eat Cheeseburgers not because there's a reason not to eat cheeseburgers, but because that way you wind up thinking of yourself as one of the People Who Doesn't Eat Cheeseburgers.

As a mechanism for making sure a cultural group hangs together over long periods of time it works very effectively, even when the group has every reason to abandon their ancient ways and assimilate. Look at the Jews if you don't believe me.

Point taken. I'm just surprised that Harris or anyone would honestly expect a religious book that garnered official disapproval of the dominant religious sects in the area would sell like hotcakes.

It's a common mistake for people who've been taken in by a charlatan: I believe in Bob's business plan because Bob seems like such a nice man, and so convincing. It helps that the charlatan is usually looking for people who will be an easy mark; if you can convince someone that your Bible fanfic actually happened, you can probably convince them to mortgage the farm to help publish it. Because if they'll believe the story you just dictated to them, they'll believe anything.

Since I don't trust it any farther than I can throw the Salt Lake Tabernacle... let's just say you won't be running into me at church any time in the foreseeable future.

I would hardly expect otherwise, Simon. Beyond, of course, that I think you live a significant distance away from me.

I first came up with that line a few years back talking to someone else; then it was the Basilica of St. Peter. Other things I don't trust farther than I can throw include oxygen molecules, Henry Kissinger's sense of self-importance, and Vladimir Putin*.

*Consider: he is an expert in unarmed combat; I am not. He would throw me; thus the distance I can throw him is negative...
________

As someone who has read that horrible book, it is NOT Tolkein or Shakespeare. It's not like Joseph Smith suddenly started channeling Milton or anything. The Book of Mormon reads like a bad Bible fanfic* written a yokel. Whatdayaknow?

*Actually, that may be redundant as it's hard to say whether there could be such a thing as a good Bible fanfic.

It's probably possible; what you'd have to do is take the style, play it up a bit for laughs, and make it obvious to people reading between the lines that something entertaining is going on. It would be kind of subtle and tricky, but doable.

I am surprised no one has contemplated the above.. Since the OP of the thread Was contemplating the elimination of the Mormon church... I wonder if there is a way to Ensure Lincoln continues down his normal political Path without the church, OR, an easy way to eliminate it after He begins to run in Washington. Going over things, I wonder how effective targeting Brigham Young and his group while en-eroute to Utah would have been, perhaps pay off several Indian Tribes to eliminate them.

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose by reducing the ripple effect that the nonexistence of the Mormon church would have? Then you're left asking "what would be the consequences if I took steps to eliminate the consequences?"

[Crossroads Inc.]

I am surprised no one has contemplated the above.. Since the OP of the thread Was contemplating the elimination of the Mormon church... I wonder if there is a way to Ensure Lincoln continues down his normal political Path without the church, OR, an easy way to eliminate it after He begins to run in Washington. Going over things, I wonder how effective targeting Brigham Young and his group while en-eroute to Utah would have been, perhaps pay off several Indian Tribes to eliminate them.

Wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose by reducing the ripple effect that the nonexistence of the Mormon church would have? Then you're left asking "what would be the consequences if I took steps to eliminate the consequences?"

Quite true, and all things being equal, who knows how Lincoln would have faired without the influence in Ill, he may have indeed gone down his normal path on his own.

That said, reading through the rest of this, especially in regards to how Joseph Smith "started" his religion, makes me more and more convinced that Mormon Church is the Perfect example of how, for those that see things, Religion is the perfect Power and Money generator.

Let us compare Mormons and Scientology for a moment. Both are the only cases of a form of "religion" being founded in modern times AND gaining notable power and influence. Both were created by people who either had a history of being frauds, wanting to control others, or understood how gullible people are. Looking at the Mormon church today, it has reached something that Scientology can only dream of, that of being "Institutionalized"

What do I mean by that? Well let us start by saying that so far, every other large Western Religion has reached this stage, Jeudismin, Christianity, Catholicism, the 5000 different American founded branches of Christianity... And what it is is that These Churches these days, act as giant Business of a sort, the take in money, influence power and hold control over members. Originally long LONG again, most religions started off simple... Be kind to your neighbors, don't kill, don't steal, etc. Modern religions however have long passed the point of actually trying to make the world a better place by actually following 'their message' and simply wish to make the rest of the world as they wish it.

Going further, the doctrine and the origin of Modern Churches doesn't even mater any more.. They all behave the same way. They act as Massive Social institution that bring like minded people together. Again, for Money gathering and power and Control along the way they give piecemeal offers to "helping the needy" which usually boil down to short term feel good offerings ot the homeless, or even more often these days "Praying" ((the ultimate way of feeling you are helping without actually doing anything))

Where does all of this relate to Mormons and how the church was started? Well, after reading through the thread, and also after a length Lecture by my Boyfriend after discovering this thread... The Mormon church as reached this point today, and HOW it was formed is irrelevant. After all, and this was something my Boyfriend pointed out to me, the higher up you go in the Church, the less likely you are to find someone that actually "Believes" everything in the book of Mormon. More and more you get people talking about 'interpretation" and "what the book means, not what it says." It is clear to most of us that Joesph smith made the whole thing u, Indeed this is where I think oif the early Mormon church, to scientology now... Early churches, as I said, began with "a message" a way for people to get along, and live together, even if no one listened to it...

As far as I know, Mormonism began, right from the start, as nothing more then a Money making Power and Control vehicle. The 'teachings' of the book are largely a large list of how NOT to lead your life, don't do these things, and then copies generic "Be nice to people" platitudes. The crux is, in the beginning, did Joseph smith and his followers ever Help anyone? At any point early on did they set up a poor shelter? Help the needy? Tend to the Sick? Did the early church start off doing any of the standard things early religions are asked to do?

It seems... that right from the start, the church was set up with the goal in mind of Growing as fast as possible, and controlling as much as possible.. All property and wealth becomes church property. Polygamy is encouraged to get babies made ASAP for new kids to indoctrinate. The long and short of it all, is that while oth religions have the pretext of starting as small groups of people with a message... The Mormon church seems tailor maded from the getgo as basically a Money racket.

Whew! I didn't think I would ramble that long, but that is My Two cents!

[Gil Hamilton]

If you're going off that logic, why does God need a Jew to burn animals to repent? Why does He tell them not to eat certain foods (there's no rational reason He would care what His followers eat)? Why do ceremonial washings matter to Him? Why a tenth part if He doesn't need so much as a breadcrumb? I generally chalk up all these rituals that would make no rational difference to a deity as demonstrations of faith but there IS a reasonable explanation. If we assume that there is a God, we can assume a deity with at least some level of rationality who recognizes that a building cannot be constructed with faith nor a priest able to choose a lifetime of preaching without some way to eat and be clothed and housed. Certainly, God might provide all these things by magic but no culture has ever believed that a god will magically make everything without them having to do anything but bow down. There is certainly a rational reason to believe that specifics about food and donations are a cynical attempt by clergy to get rich off gullible people but there IS a reasonable explanation for why God would expect mortals to do something (such as supply the physical needs of the church) without hand-holding.

That isn't an act of faith, that's an act of busywork. The logical problem with what you are saying is that "God" is a completely redundant term in the argument. You don't need to invoke "God" for these things, you could easily replace it with "Clergy" and it changes nothing in what you are saying. Priests expect people do rituals to keep up faith in and participation in their church. Priests encourage tithes and offerings to support the Church. You don't see how all these things benefit the clergy of a given institution more than they would any sort of diety? Even a good natured member of the clergy utilizes ritual to keep followers engaged and may even believe that that pile of sacrificed bulls are delightful to the almighty, the clear benefit is to the priest, not the diety.

In the end, God is just multiplying your argument by a ratio that is equal to one. It makes it look different, but it really doesn't change anything.

[Serafine666]

That isn't an act of faith, that's an act of busywork. The logical problem with what you are saying is that "God" is a completely redundant term in the argument. You don't need to invoke "God" for these things, you could easily replace it with "Clergy" and it changes nothing in what you are saying.

If I replaced "God" with "clergy", it would totally change what I'm saying because, as you might notice, the entire point is to answer the question "why does God have followers do materially-relevant things when they do not benefit Him?" If I was talking about why the clergy might be motivated to do these things, I would be writing an utterly different argument because the motivations of the individual are obviously different.

Priests expect people do rituals to keep up faith in and participation in their church. Priests encourage tithes and offerings to support the Church.

God expects people to show faith in the completion of certain rituals. God expects that the members of a church would provide for the material requirements of the faith. I'm not sure why you believe your two statements and my two statements must be mutually exclusive. Why do you believe it impossible that God would require certain material things of His followers that He doesn't benefit from?

You don't see how all these things benefit the clergy of a given institution more than they would any sort of diety? Even a good natured member of the clergy utilizes ritual to keep followers engaged and may even believe that that pile of sacrificed bulls are delightful to the almighty, the clear benefit is to the priest, not the diety.

I see that the deity doesn't benefit from it in any way whatsoever because unless God deposits the contents of the collection plate in His piggy bank to buy a lollipop, there is no possibility of Him benefiting. What does this have to do with anything?

In the end, God is just multiplying your argument by a ratio that is equal to one. It makes it look different, but it really doesn't change anything.

As I said at the beginning, completely different arguments are required if you're trying to explain the actions and motivations of a deity versus trying to explain the actions and motivations of a mortal.

[Serafine666]

Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of what "meme" means. As for the rest: I'm not just talking about religions that are psychologically binding; I'm talking about what they're binding you to. Some religions just bind you to a certain set of practices and philosophical beliefs that are mostly harmless and sometimes helpful. Others bind you into a capital-C Church dedicated to the task of expanding itself and of using you as a tool to aid in its expansion.

While the former type may well be wrong-headed, they usually aren't dangerous. The latter group are very dangerous and often lead to great evil. They're the social equivalent of von Neumann machines, and left unchecked, they're quite capable of reducing the intellectual landscape to gray goo.

Fair enough. I see what the Mormon church binds me to as fitting into your first category more than your second.
_________

The best explanation I can come up with is that it's a sort of bizarre team-building exercise. Thou Shalt Not Eat Cheeseburgers not because there's a reason not to eat cheeseburgers, but because that way you wind up thinking of yourself as one of the People Who Doesn't Eat Cheeseburgers.

As a mechanism for making sure a cultural group hangs together over long periods of time it works very effectively, even when the group has every reason to abandon their ancient ways and assimilate. Look at the Jews if you don't believe me.

I believe you, Simon, I genuinely do. But you have such a funny way of putting it. And your explanation seems to be at least as good as mine if not better.

It's a common mistake for people who've been taken in by a charlatan: I believe in Bob's business plan because Bob seems like such a nice man, and so convincing. It helps that the charlatan is usually looking for people who will be an easy mark; if you can convince someone that your Bible fanfic actually happened, you can probably convince them to mortgage the farm to help publish it. Because if they'll believe the story you just dictated to them, they'll believe anything.

I don't believe that there're alien spaceships at Area 51 although I believe in the Book of Mormon as a precept of being Mormon. "If you believe idiotic thing A you'll believe anything" is a good throw-away argument but people are amazingly good at being simultaneously gullible and rational.

I first came up with that line a few years back talking to someone else; then it was the Basilica of St. Peter. Other things I don't trust farther than I can throw include oxygen molecules, Henry Kissinger's sense of self-importance, and Vladimir Putin*.

*Consider: he is an expert in unarmed combat; I am not. He would throw me; thus the distance I can throw him is negative...

Can't you technically throw an oxygen molecule a very long distance?

[Spoonist]

Let us compare Mormons and Scientology for a moment. Both are the only cases of a form of "religion" being founded in modern times AND gaining notable power and influence.

Minor nitpick here, but they are not "the only cases". Of the top of my head I'd say:

Christian sects
Moonies
Jehovas

other
Bahá'í
bhajans

then those who are limited in power and influence but is still strong or growing
wicca
Anthroposophy
TM

and of course since we are on this site:
Jedism

And that is just my recollection, there are probably some more influencial in asia that I don't know about.

But my point really is that religions are always forming and lots of them are highly successful. Both in gaining followers but also in direct power, either through capital or by getting to politicians.

[Gil Hamilton]

If I replaced "God" with "clergy", it would totally change what I'm saying because, as you might notice, the entire point is to answer the question "why does God have followers do materially-relevant things when they do not benefit Him?" If I was talking about why the clergy might be motivated to do these things, I would be writing an utterly different argument because the motivations of the individual are obviously different.

Not really, because those same motivations easily can stick to a priest of any god, rather than to the god itself. A priest of Dionysis can expect the exact same thing from his followers as Dionysis himself does. The fact that it directly benefits the priests, however, makes it more likely that the priest would do these things, rather than Dionysis.

God expects people to show faith in the completion of certain rituals. God expects that the members of a church would provide for the material requirements of the faith. I'm not sure why you believe your two statements and my two statements must be mutually exclusive. Why do you believe it impossible that God would require certain material things of His followers that He doesn't benefit from?

Because you don't need god in the equation. A priest expects people to show faith in the completion of certain rituals. A priest expects the members of a church would provide for the material requirements of the faith. You don't need to include god in any of this. Even rationally, a priest gets a hell of alot more out these things than their God does. No gods actually ate burnt offerings of chickens and bulls in history, but the priests sure did. It's not the gods living off that money, because gods need nothing.

We don't need to resort of god, because rules for meeting the physical requirements of the church are easily explained with it.

I see that the deity doesn't benefit from it in any way whatsoever because unless God deposits the contents of the collection plate in His piggy bank to buy a lollipop, there is no possibility of Him benefiting. What does this have to do with anything?

What it has to do with anything is that everything you said could be assigned to the priest and not the god. The difference is that the priest ACTUALLY benefits from it, giving the priest a motive. Note that this needs not be one where the priest is taking people for a ride (though it happens, see L. Ron Hubbard), they could sincerely believe their own story, but the effect is the same. A priest benefits, a god does not. So which is more likely to require rituals and tithes and offerings?

[Simon_Jester]

What it has to do with anything is that everything you said could be assigned to the priest and not the god. The difference is that the priest ACTUALLY benefits from it, giving the priest a motive. Note that this needs not be one where the priest is taking people for a ride (though it happens, see L. Ron Hubbard), they could sincerely believe their own story, but the effect is the same. A priest benefits, a god does not. So which is more likely to require rituals and tithes and offerings?

OK, bear with me for a moment.

If gods are to be believed in (for the moment, for the sake of argument), then there are all sorts of reasons they might want people to perform rituals and make offerings. Maybe they get their jollies from watching a thousand people sit in a smoky room and chant about how awesome they are. Maybe on some spiritual plane they really do get to eat the ox you just sacrificed to them. Maybe they need concentrated Essence of Belief to live (a common fantasy trope), and so they command their followers to do things that guarantee a steady supply of Belief, such as missionary work and teaching their children to believe.

The unifying feature of these reasons is that none of them are tangible, which stands to reason because the gods themselves aren't tangible, which leads the dedicated rationalist to conclude that there aren't any and it's all an elaborate scam. At which point the rationalist may say "which is more likely, that the gods need worship or that the priests are leading us all on?" Working logically from only that which is tangible, the answer is "it's a scam, even if the priests haven't caught on to it themselves."

But that "which is more likely?" question is separate from the question of "Why would a god want to be worshipped?" or "Why does a god want money?" I can think of all sorts of reasons for a god to want to be worshipped. And, given their desire for worship, to want assets that can be turned into worship by winning converts. And none of those reasons are any less plausible than the existence of the gods was to begin with.

Given the existence of gods for the sake of argument, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for them to want people to sacrifice time and resources to them. Gods with a strong authority complex, who have lost track of the difference between their will and morality, might even call it a sin to do otherwise. I see no reason not to expect that sort of thing.

It's a common mistake for people who've been taken in by a charlatan: I believe in Bob's business plan because Bob seems like such a nice man, and so convincing. It helps that the charlatan is usually looking for people who will be an easy mark; if you can convince someone that your Bible fanfic actually happened, you can probably convince them to mortgage the farm to help publish it. Because if they'll believe the story you just dictated to them, they'll believe anything.

I don't believe that there're alien spaceships at Area 51 although I believe in the Book of Mormon as a precept of being Mormon. "If you believe idiotic thing A you'll believe anything" is a good throw-away argument but people are amazingly good at being simultaneously gullible and rational.

OK; I exaggerate. But remember that I'm not talking about members of an established religion; by the time you signed on with the LDS they'd already existed for 100 to 150 years. I'm talking about the dynamics in the earliest stage.

Look at it from the hypothetical point of view of someone who really is a charlatan- such as L. Ron. Hubbard. He writes up his own Holy Book and manages to convince a small circle of people that he has the veritable Truth About Life written down in it.

Now, those first-wave converts have just won the Gullibility Olympics. It takes a hell of a lot more suppression of your inner skeptic to be the first person to join a new religion than to be the millionth, assuming for the sake of argument that no one is actually performing veritable miracles before your eyes. People who are that gullible can be convinced of absurd nonsense much more easily than the average Joe, especially when the nonsense in question involves empowering the person who just got them to join his cult, giving him money and resources needed to Spread The Message.

If you don't believe me, look at how many real cults (the Scientologists, the Branch Davidians, the Heaven's Gate people, the Moonies, the Jonestown people...) wind up benefiting from the willingness of the first-stage followers to do anything, however foolish, self-destructive, or even outright suicidal, for the sake of the Leader.

Can't you technically throw an oxygen molecule a very long distance?

Yes. And I trust oxygen molecules very very much.

[Gil Hamilton]

OK, bear with me for a moment.

If gods are to be believed in (for the moment, for the sake of argument), then there are all sorts of reasons they might want people to perform rituals and make offerings. Maybe they get their jollies from watching a thousand people sit in a smoky room and chant about how awesome they are. Maybe on some spiritual plane they really do get to eat the ox you just sacrificed to them. Maybe they need concentrated Essence of Belief to live (a common fantasy trope), and so they command their followers to do things that guarantee a steady supply of Belief, such as missionary work and teaching their children to believe.

This is a very Greek or very Terry Pratchett view of things, but I don't think it pans out. In this case:

The last point is straight out. Logically, a deity can't require people's beliefs to exist. The implication is that a God existence is entirely a construct of the population that believes in it. Of course, fantasy writers like Terry Pratchett love this; in fact, its the whole point of alot of his books and Small Gods in particular. However, this doesn't match a working definition of an actual god, in the sense that I'm talking to Serafine with. Gods must be independent entities in order for them to be real gods.

Likewise, it doesn't require offerings or tithes, because it could simply generate them at all. Gods are ultimate post-scarcity entities. It doesn't need our sacrificed bull to munch on, it can make as many delicious bovines as it sees fit, in addition to the fact that it has no actually need for the consumption of bulls in the first place.

The unifying feature of these reasons is that none of them are tangible, which stands to reason because the gods themselves aren't tangible, which leads the dedicated rationalist to conclude that there aren't any and it's all an elaborate scam. At which point the rationalist may say "which is more likely, that the gods need worship or that the priests are leading us all on?" Working logically from only that which is tangible, the answer is "it's a scam, even if the priests haven't caught on to it themselves."

But that "which is more likely?" question is separate from the question of "Why would a god want to be worshipped?" or "Why does a god want money?" I can think of all sorts of reasons for a god to want to be worshipped. And, given their desire for worship, to want assets that can be turned into worship by winning converts. And none of those reasons are any less plausible than the existence of the gods was to begin with.

I don't believe they are seperate questions. I think one question is a result of the other. The latter questions of "Why does a god want money?", is not the question, but "Why does a god want YOUR money?". A god has no need of it and can effortlessly provide for itself. You can say to support that god's earthly institutions, but that is trivial as well. Any god that deserves the name can also support a church by itself, with a waggle of its non-tangential fingers. Priests need to devote all their time to leading prayer? Any god can provide them with food, shelter, and material, or eliminate the need for it entirely. The flock needs a place to worship you? Creating a building is surely trivial compared to all existence.

Clearly, something doesn't add up on the God Front, that the congregation is doing alot of work for something that has absolutely no use for it and isn't lifting a finger to help. So the question shifts to the former question above of "Which is more likely?"

Given the existence of gods for the sake of argument, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for them to want people to sacrifice time and resources to them. Gods with a strong authority complex, who have lost track of the difference between their will and morality, might even call it a sin to do otherwise. I see no reason not to expect that sort of thing.[/quote]
You are assigning God a pretty hefty ego. I don't have a problem with that, but I think it doesn't jive with the kind of God we are talking about.

[Darth Wong]

This is true but the Book of Mormon is the only instance where I've ever heard of someone believing that a single person, even with help, successfully wrote a book of scripture 531 pages long utilizing a writing style very similar to the Bible.

The Bible has a horrible writing style, even if you remove the archaic language preferred in some popular translations. Why is it a particular feat to emulate its incredibly clunky writing style, which itself originated in a period of incredibly poor literacy? If anything, that only strengthens the accusation that its composition did not require particular talent, especially if it was a somewhat collaborative effort.

Nor does the length particularly recommend it: this relates to the Biblical writing style, but that style takes a very long time to get to the point, when there is one. Let's take a random excerpt from the Book of Moron:

HELAMAN 4:12: "And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, witholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites"
HELAMAN 4:13: "And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands."
HELAMAN 4:14: "But behold, Moronihah did preach many things unto the people because of their iniquity, and also Nephi and Lehi, who were the sons of Helaman, did preach many things unto the people, yea, and did prophesy many things unto them concerning their iniquities, and what should come unto them if they did not repent of their sins.

We have a word for that: "padding".

[Samuel]

Maybe they need concentrated Essence of Belief to live (a common fantasy trope), and so they command their followers to do things that guarantee a steady supply of Belief, such as missionary work and teaching their children to believe.

Is there any reason dieties can't technologically replicate that? If you need belief to exist, what is to stop you from making an entire universe of brains in jars that believe in you?

[Gil Hamilton]

Is there any reason dieties can't technologically replicate that? If you need belief to exist, what is to stop you from making an entire universe of brains in jars that believe in you?

Moreoever, they don't even need to resort to this. All a deity would have to do is go "Hey, dudes, I'm real!" and do some miracles to get people to believe in it (interestingly enough, this is what happened in Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" with OM)

[Broomstick]

I'd like to point out (just for the sake of argument) that there ARE well-established religions with deities with specific material requirements in regards to sacrifices. Of course, these are not omnipotent gods - hence, they can't create, by themselves, these essentials. The Aztecs had gods that required human sacrifice to maintain their power to run the universe. The Ife-Santeria-Vodoun triad require blood and animal sacrifice to their worshiped deities (which are not all-powerful and, in fact, have a god above them that is disinterested in humans - that god is omnipotent, but humans can't contact it directly and use the loa/saints and intermediaries). Of course, to a rationalist atheist that makes no sense, but those are both examples of religions where "god" is not omnipotent and thus does require something from the believer to maintain strength/power/whatever.

Alternatively, many native peoples in the Americas would sacrifice their own blood and flesh with the idea that sacrifice that comes from one's own self is what's meaningful. I'm not clear entirely whether it's the blood itself that is important or that one is willing to demonstrate one's devotion in a physical manner, but it's found in times and places as diverse as the Sioux Sun Dance in the Dakotas to ancient Mayan practices of self-bloodletting.

Gil, you seem to be taking the monotheistic Abrahamic God as the definition of "god", which does not apply to all cultures and times. I'm OK with you doing that, just be clear that the definition of "god" you're using isn't a universal one.

[Gil Hamilton]

Certainly is not the universial one, I mentioned Dionysis who certainly wasn't omnipotent (none of the Greek Gods were). However, I'm defining god as a general omnipotent entity for the sake of logical conversation with Serafine, who clearly defines God as that Abrahamic one. Depending on your definition, most "gods" found in religion aren't gods, just really powerful spirits.

[Serafine666]

If gods are to be believed in (for the moment, for the sake of argument), then there are all sorts of reasons they might want people to perform rituals and make offerings.
-snip much more erudite version of my intended answer-
Given the existence of gods for the sake of argument, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for them to want people to sacrifice time and resources to them. Gods with a strong authority complex, who have lost track of the difference between their will and morality, might even call it a sin to do otherwise. I see no reason not to expect that sort of thing.

More or less, Simon's argument was what I was trying to get at, Gil. If you don't start the argument by taking the existence of God as a given, using God pointlessly multiplies the argument. Since I'm trying to get at why God might do something, I start with the premise that God exists and is a rational actor.

OK; I exaggerate. But remember that I'm not talking about members of an established religion; by the time you signed on with the LDS they'd already existed for 100 to 150 years. I'm talking about the dynamics in the earliest stage.

Look at it from the hypothetical point of view of someone who really is a charlatan- such as L. Ron. Hubbard. He writes up his own Holy Book and manages to convince a small circle of people that he has the veritable Truth About Life written down in it.

I actually always thought that L. Ron Hubbard invented his religion as a proof of concept more than because he genuinely believed what he was selling. His point being if you make it sound plausible, you can get richer off of inventing a religion than you can doing honest work. However, do go on.

Now, those first-wave converts have just won the Gullibility Olympics. It takes a hell of a lot more suppression of your inner skeptic to be the first person to join a new religion than to be the millionth, assuming for the sake of argument that no one is actually performing veritable miracles before your eyes. People who are that gullible can be convinced of absurd nonsense much more easily than the average Joe, especially when the nonsense in question involves empowering the person who just got them to join his cult, giving him money and resources needed to Spread The Message.

If you don't believe me, look at how many real cults (the Scientologists, the Branch Davidians, the Heaven's Gate people, the Moonies, the Jonestown people...) wind up benefiting from the willingness of the first-stage followers to do anything, however foolish, self-destructive, or even outright suicidal, for the sake of the Leader.

I believe you without question on this particular point, Simon.

Yes. And I trust oxygen molecules very very much.

Point taken.

[Simon_Jester]

I actually always thought that L. Ron Hubbard invented his religion as a proof of concept more than because he genuinely believed what he was selling. His point being if you make it sound plausible, you can get richer off of inventing a religion than you can doing honest work. However, do go on.

Serafine, that's my point. Hubbard decided to take up charlatanry because it was more rewarding than writing pulp science fiction, and succeeded. That's why I used it as an example of charlatanry. I don't actually know if Joseph Smith believed what he was saying any more than Hubbard did; I can't very well ask him. All I know is that if a charlatan can make it work without divine intervention, no divine intervention is needed to explain how Smith could make it work.

Which, again, is part of why we won't be running into each other in church any time soon.
________

Certainly is not the universial one, I mentioned Dionysis who certainly wasn't omnipotent (none of the Greek Gods were). However, I'm defining god as a general omnipotent entity for the sake of logical conversation with Serafine, who clearly defines God as that Abrahamic one. Depending on your definition, most "gods" found in religion aren't gods, just really powerful spirits.

OK. This makes things much clearer. I've been using "god" in the generic sense, because:

...The last point is straight out. Logically, a deity can't require people's beliefs to exist. The implication is that a God existence is entirely a construct of the population that believes in it. Of course, fantasy writers like Terry Pratchett love this; in fact, its the whole point of alot of his books and Small Gods in particular. However, this doesn't match a working definition of an actual god, in the sense that I'm talking to Serafine with. Gods must be independent entities in order for them to be real gods.

The problem I have here is that your definition of "god" doesn't necessarily match the one being used by others. And I'm skeptical of the idea that we can say something like "'Thor is not really a god" on the grounds that Thor does not match some idea of a god. After all, he's not even immortal, strictly speaking.

Maybe to you, Thor is just an impossibly strong guy with a big hammer and a Van de Graaf generator stuck to his spine; but other people actually did (and do) worship him as a deity. The question of whether he's a "real" god is sort of academic. But for the sake of argument, I'll drop that point, because...

Likewise, it doesn't require offerings or tithes, because it could simply generate them at all. Gods are ultimate post-scarcity entities. It doesn't need our sacrificed bull to munch on, it can make as many delicious bovines as it sees fit, in addition to the fact that it has no actually need for the consumption of bulls in the first place.

...I don't think you're adequately distinguishing between "want" and "need." A god might not have needs, but it could still have wants- such as wanting to be amused by watching people chant or go to great inconvenience to find stuff to sacrifice to it. And yes, it could just create its own people to do the chanting and sacrificing; according to most religions it did. That's why we're here, if you believe them.

So I can still think of a number of reasons for a god (or an abstract Ultimate Abrahamic God) to want people to do things, independent of the possibility that it actually needs them to do things. Maybe not good reasons that I'd respect, but still reasons.

Given the existence of gods for the sake of argument, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for them to want people to sacrifice time and resources to them. Gods with a strong authority complex, who have lost track of the difference between their will and morality, might even call it a sin to do otherwise. I see no reason not to expect that sort of thing.

You are assigning God a pretty hefty ego. I don't have a problem with that, but I think it doesn't jive with the kind of God we are talking about.

What kind of god are we talking about again? I've been using the small-g version of the noun because I've been talking about "gods" in the most general sense: supernatural entities of extreme power who are worshipped by a group of followers. What restrictions do you place on your definition of "god?" Are you talking only about the ultimate abstract Abrahamic God?*

Speaking for myself, I can easily imagine "a god" in the generic sense wanting or needing things. An idealized abstract Ultimate God wouldn't need anything, but might very well still want things to happen. And I can't place any conditions on what a God you'd be willing to worship would be like, because that definition exists only inside your head.

*I would argue that the "Abrahamic God" is more of a "Platonic God;" while Abraham probably believed that his God was the biggest and meanest god on the block, nothing I've seen recounting his experiences made him believe that there were no other gods at all, or that the god he was talking to was literally all-powerful. The idea of gods as "omnipotent" instead of being 'merely' very, very strong seems more of a Platonic concept to me. Maybe I'm wrong, though...
_______

Is there any reason dieties can't technologically replicate that? If you need belief to exist, what is to stop you from making an entire universe of brains in jars that believe in you?

From the point of view of the faithful, who knows? Maybe they did, and we are those brains in jars.

Or, if we're talking about generic gods and not the idealized Ultimate God, maybe they're piggybacking on a universe created by a more powerful deity for reasons of their own. Maybe they don't have the power to create universes at will. They just have the power to cause gigantic earthquakes at will or whatever, something wimpy and minor like that.

I, for one, would be pretty afraid of a being that could cause giant earthquakes at will; they'd be a one-man walking nuclear arsenal. If someone like that came to me and demanded an ox, I would be inclined to give him one.

[Spoonist]

...I don't think you're adequately distinguishing between "want" and "need." A god might not have needs, but it could still have wants- such as wanting to be amused by watching people chant or go to great inconvenience to find stuff to sacrifice to it. And yes, it could just create its own people to do the chanting and sacrificing; according to most religions it did. That's why we're here, if you believe them.

So I can still think of a number of reasons for a god (or an abstract Ultimate Abrahamic God) to want people to do things, independent of the possibility that it actually needs them to do things. Maybe not good reasons that I'd respect, but still reasons.

Adn most of the worlds polytheistic mythology would agree with you. The gods rarely need things but they sure as heck want things. Like mortal women in greece mythology for instance.

An idealized abstract Ultimate God wouldn't need anything, but might very well still want things to happen.

When it comes the abrahemic one, the book of job would show that you are right. He doesn't need to let the other deity do those things to job, but he did want to show the other deity the devotion of his follower.

[Gil Hamilton]

More or less, Simon's argument was what I was trying to get at, Gil. If you don't start the argument by taking the existence of God as a given, using God pointlessly multiplies the argument. Since I'm trying to get at why God might do something, I start with the premise that God exists and is a rational actor.

One thing is you are starting with the premise that God exists, but are assuming his motives as well. That's not reasonable.

Also, it doesn't address why a supreme entity would want or need any of that stuff, let alone require it with force. This discussion fell out of you stating that tithes were not just supporting the church but robbing God. That it isn't just something to be encouraged, but something you will be punished for if you don't do. Robbing, of course, states that you are taking something that belongs to someone else and is legally punishable. As a rational actor, this doesn't make sense unless you make god petty and egotistical; that the sweat of your brow belongs to HIM, not you for producing it. This is not rational. As a supreme entity, he can provide for himself. If his church REQUIRES support, then he could easily provide it himself, with a waggle of his non-tangible fingers. There is no need to fleece the flock with threats of damnation if they don't cough up, and no rational reason to do so, when IF we assume God to exist, it would be trivial to provide himself. Not only make threats of damnation, but not back it up by definite evidence of its existence.

I would think that your sig statement, Serafine, would make you appreciate this. It's not rational to state that is moral and good to do these things, when IF we assume God exists, we are offered the same choice as if we were confronted by a brigand telling us to "stand and deliver" or the taxman collecting a percentage of our income. Of course, I'm guessing you are talking about the Government in your sig statement (correct me if I'm wrong) and not God (interestingly, this is why Ayn Rand was an athiest).

...I don't think you're adequately distinguishing between "want" and "need." A god might not have needs, but it could still have wants- such as wanting to be amused by watching people chant or go to great inconvenience to find stuff to sacrifice to it. And yes, it could just create its own people to do the chanting and sacrificing; according to most religions it did. That's why we're here, if you believe them.

So I can still think of a number of reasons for a god (or an abstract Ultimate Abrahamic God) to want people to do things, independent of the possibility that it actually needs them to do things. Maybe not good reasons that I'd respect, but still reasons.

OK, fine, point taken. Tell me, what rational reason would a deity have for WANTING these things? And is it more reasonable and likely than the Priests of those deities wanting the same thing?

What kind of god are we talking about again? I've been using the small-g version of the noun because I've been talking about "gods" in the most general sense: supernatural entities of extreme power who are worshipped by a group of followers. What restrictions do you place on your definition of "god?" Are you talking only about the ultimate abstract Abrahamic God?*

Any abstract, omnipotent entity will do. I don't know why you keep saying Abrahamic, because if you read the OT, that one was anything BUT abstract.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, fine, point taken. Tell me, what rational reason would a deity have for WANTING these things? And is it more reasonable and likely than the Priests of those deities wanting the same thing?

Where do you mean to take the question? If your conclusion is "this temple is probably a scam run by the priests because the priests have a more obvious motivation for wanting funds to maintain the temple than the god does," I don't intend to argue.

If you are asking the question purely for its own sake, I can think of a number of answers:
-Again, a deity might actually need some kind of sustenance, physical or ethereal. If Thor needs to eat, it certainly makes sense for Thor to want his followers to give him food. He'd be a fool not to.
-A deity might enjoy things that, strictly speaking, they don't need. They might be able to live without chocolate and yet still find sacrifices of chocolate to be tasty. Again, a logical motivation.
-Even if the god derives no direct pleasure from the act of sacrifice, they might still find certain forms of worship or sacrifice amusing to watch (much as I might enjoy watching a play even though the mere act of listening to the players does not directly cause pleasure in my mind). While "it amuses me" isn't a very good reason to force people to toil on your behalf, I consider it to be rational- it makes sense that someone would want to be entertained.
-A deity might want some side-effect of the donation process, some state of mind achieved in the believers by the process of working for the benefit of the god. Maybe the god just wants to have people around who are willing to sacrifice for him. Maybe the god has some sort of "it's for your own good to renounce the fruits of your labors and concentrate on achieving Paradise/Nirvana/whatever" motivation. You might not believe that this is true, and there are good reasons for you not to, but it's still a logical motivation.

I am not trying to propose "gods must exist because it makes sense for them to want sacrifices" here. But if gods exist, I can easily think of reasons for them to want sacrifices, some of which apply to Platonic God and some of which don't.
______

Any abstract, omnipotent entity will do. I don't know why you keep saying Abrahamic, because if you read the OT, that one was anything BUT abstract.

I'm doing it largely because Broomstick used that word for the god worshipped by Christians, Muslims and (so far as I know) Jews. Which I assume she did because that's the god now worshipped by the religions collectively known as "Abrahamic." Abraham, personally, worshipped a big bearded skyman, but his distant successors worship a Platonic abstract super-deity. From now on I'm going to call that kind of deity "Platonic," for reasons I outlined in my last post. You do have a point about Abraham worshipping a big bearded skyman, after all.

[Serafine666]

One thing is you are starting with the premise that God exists, but are assuming his motives as well. That's not reasonable.

The existence of an all-powerful all-knowing being somewhere out there in the universe that affects the existence of humankind is, technically, neither reasonable nor rational. When discussing God, you almost get into "suspension of disbelief" territory much like when you see a big spherical space station blowing up a planet.

Also, it doesn't address why a supreme entity would want or need any of that stuff, let alone require it with force. This discussion fell out of you stating that tithes were not just supporting the church but robbing God. That it isn't just something to be encouraged, but something you will be punished for if you don't do. Robbing, of course, states that you are taking something that belongs to someone else and is legally punishable. As a rational actor, this doesn't make sense unless you make god petty and egotistical; that the sweat of your brow belongs to HIM, not you for producing it. This is not rational. As a supreme entity, he can provide for himself. If his church REQUIRES support, then he could easily provide it himself, with a waggle of his non-tangible fingers. There is no need to fleece the flock with threats of damnation if they don't cough up, and no rational reason to do so, when IF we assume God to exist, it would be trivial to provide himself. Not only make threats of damnation, but not back it up by definite evidence of its existence.

I generally agree with what you're saying, Gil, but you seem to be falling into the typical assumption of God as a ringmaster in a circus, making trivial use of His power to do mundane tasks that the typical mortal person can do. This would be equivalent to a king having a servant turn the pages of a book or pick up his fork for him, a petty and silly substitution of power in a mundane way just for the fun of using that power. My assumption is of a God that does not do for the believers what the believers can do for themselves. Certainly, God could cause a church building to descend from the sky accompanied by the trumpets and songs of angels but how would that be consistent with a deity who regularly is quoted as putting heavy emphasis on the believers having faith? A person no more needs to have faith in a God that acts in that way than they need to have faith that a baseball that just broke their window is really there. Therefore, it is wholly consistent that a God who requires faith from the believers would have them manifest this faith in relatively small material sacrifice to fulfill the material requirements of the religion. Building a chapel, giving the preacher a little stipend so he doesn't starve, showing up at a weekly meeting to yell "hallalujah" and other things require some expenditure of time and material resources which demonstrates that you believe that your religion is deserving of these sacrifices; more or less, those expenditures are a sign of faith. If God values faith (for whatever reason) as much as the Bible indicates, refusal to show even the smallest degree of faith could be reasonably assumed to offend Him in some manner. Ultmately, this is how I see the rhetoric of robbery to be an accurate way to convey how God would regard the refusal to pay tithes and offerings.

I would think that your sig statement, Serafine, would make you appreciate this. It's not rational to state that is moral and good to do these things, when IF we assume God exists, we are offered the same choice as if we were confronted by a brigand telling us to "stand and deliver" or the taxman collecting a percentage of our income. Of course, I'm guessing you are talking about the Government in your sig statement (correct me if I'm wrong) and not God (interestingly, this is why Ayn Rand was an athiest).

Yes, that was my reference; more specifically "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws. But I fully appreciate what you're saying, Gil.

[Gil Hamilton]

I generally agree with what you're saying, Gil, but you seem to be falling into the typical assumption of God as a ringmaster in a circus, making trivial use of His power to do mundane tasks that the typical mortal person can do. This would be equivalent to a king having a servant turn the pages of a book or pick up his fork for him, a petty and silly substitution of power in a mundane way just for the fun of using that power. My assumption is of a God that does not do for the believers what the believers can do for themselves. Certainly, God could cause a church building to descend from the sky accompanied by the trumpets and songs of angels but how would that be consistent with a deity who regularly is quoted as putting heavy emphasis on the believers having faith? A person no more needs to have faith in a God that acts in that way than they need to have faith that a baseball that just broke their window is really there. Therefore, it is wholly consistent that a God who requires faith from the believers would have them manifest this faith in relatively small material sacrifice to fulfill the material requirements of the religion. Building a chapel, giving the preacher a little stipend so he doesn't starve, showing up at a weekly meeting to yell "hallalujah" and other things require some expenditure of time and material resources which demonstrates that you believe that your religion is deserving of these sacrifices; more or less, those expenditures are a sign of faith. If God values faith (for whatever reason) as much as the Bible indicates, refusal to show even the smallest degree of faith could be reasonably assumed to offend Him in some manner. Ultmately, this is how I see the rhetoric of robbery to be an accurate way to convey how God would regard the refusal to pay tithes and offerings.

You reject the assumption that God is a ringmaster in a circus but then you make him act like a ringmaster in a circus. How is it not petty to require people to act completely without evidence of your existence and then damn them for eternity if they don't go along with it? Making people act purely on faith and then punishing them for disobedience is the action of a cruel ringmaster, not a rational actor. No god has a need for his followers to do these things, to require tithes and offerings, to force you to support a clergy without a clear return on that investment, and it doesn't speak to any sort of benevolence to do so, merely ego. That makes morality out of bowing and scraping, and not only that, makes it out of bowing and scraping to something that deliberately leaves it unknown that it exists at all.

This is where my parallel discussion with Simon_Jester has lead. You can assume that a god requires these things, but it hinges on them wanting them for petty reasons. He involves Norse gods like Thor while I mentioned Greek gods like Dionysis; however, its completely understandable in their case. After all, most gods of most religions in history were completely non-abstract, they were reflections of the cultures that believed in them turned up to 11, superpowered in all respects, including the pettiness, ego, and wretchedness of those cultures. If you define them as Gods, then there is no problem. I concede that to Simon for super-entities, but not abstract deities. Incidently, this includes the God of the Old Testament, who was anything but abstract, but cruel, jealous, arbitrary and violent.

Yes, that was my reference; more specifically "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws. But I fully appreciate what you're saying, Gil.

But the irony of it is too delicious. With the Government, you KNOW its real and even if you don't like it, its twisting of your arm for tithes and offerings to it (I.E. Taxes), you get to see again in other forms. The sweat of your brow squeezed by the taxman appears again on the roads you drive on, in the police on your streets, the military that projects American influence, the government agencies that ensure the quality of your food and medicine, et cetera. It tells you what to do and is flawed, sometimes severely, but on the whole it works.

But the sweat of your brow squeezed by the clergyman, who tells you that a God that you have no evidence for the existence of not only demands it, but considers it HIS to possess and not YOURS to give, and thus will punish you for robbery... er... "lack of faith in Him", and offers you nothing tangible in return is something you've got no problem with? That it is even moral to do, even though you are offered the choice of a man being held at gun point if what he is saying is true?

Clearly, it's the GOVERNMENT that's screwing you and not the Church, am I right?

[Samuel]

The existence of an all-powerful all-knowing being somewhere out there in the universe that affects the existence of humankind is, technically, neither reasonable nor rational. When discussing God, you almost get into "suspension of disbelief" territory much like when you see a big spherical space station blowing up a planet.

Only because we don't live in a universe that is consistent with that belief. If we did reality would be much different, just like we wouldn't have to try to justify things for the backround of Star Wars if it was a real universe and internally consistent.

making trivial use of His power to do mundane tasks that the typical mortal person can do. This would be equivalent to a king having a servant turn the pages of a book or pick up his fork for him, a petty and silly substitution of power in a mundane way just for the fun of using that power.

Except that it presumes that using power requires effort for God (aka not all powerful).

Certainly, God could cause a church building to descend from the sky accompanied by the trumpets and songs of angels but how would that be consistent with a deity who regularly is quoted as putting heavy emphasis on the believers having faith?

Just because I exist and interact with you via email doesn't mean if I ask you to do something you will do it. God could prove to believers he exists, but that doesn't mean they would follow him- to have faith in an individual (aka trust) is a much more likely goal for a being that exists.

If God values faith (for whatever reason) as much as the Bible indicates, refusal to show even the smallest degree of faith could be reasonably assumed to offend Him in some manner.

That... is extremely petty. God wants stuff from people and is unwilling to give anything in return because he believes that you can do it yourself. Even if it kills you.

Yes, that was my reference; more specifically "hate crime" and "hate speech" laws. But I fully appreciate what you're saying, Gil.

Laws aren't intended to make people moral- that is why we can have immoral laws and laws that have no moral value at all (like which side of the road to drive on- all it matters is that people are consistent, not that they drive on the right).

[Serafine666]

You reject the assumption that God is a ringmaster in a circus but then you make him act like a ringmaster in a circus. How is it not petty to require people to act completely without evidence of your existence and then damn them for eternity if they don't go along with it?

The fundamental challenge of classic Christianity: why do good acts mean nothing to God unless they're done His way?

Making people act purely on faith and then punishing them for disobedience is the action of a cruel ringmaster, not a rational actor.

What God supposedly punishes us for is being actively evil. Other than that, god does not actively punish; He may withdraw protections that He previously extended in response to faith but in almost all cases, we are punished by the consequences of disobedience, not by an obsessive deity with a naughty/nice list. My ringmaster reference was to someone who put on a big show and is actively involved in all aspects of what's going on. God does not seem to resemble either trait; conventional Christianity largely believes that God has no direct dealings on the Earth and I haven't heard of ready-made chapels descending from the clouds recently.

No god has a need for his followers to do these things, to require tithes and offerings, to force you to support a clergy without a clear return on that investment, and it doesn't speak to any sort of benevolence to do so, merely ego. That makes morality out of bowing and scraping, and not only that, makes it out of bowing and scraping to something that deliberately leaves it unknown that it exists at all.

Of course God would have no need for His followers to do these things; a deity can be presumed to have no needs because they can supply any needs by their own power. However, I strongly dispute the "no return on investment"; someone who writes a million-dollar check to the Red Cross for charitable work receives something by it, whether personal satisfaction or public acclaim or both although they clearly expect no material benefits from the amount they give away. I've heard it facetiously observed that the people who paid remittances got St. Peter's Basilica (among other things) out of the deal and a massive beautiful monument is no small benefit.

Incidently, this includes the God of the Old Testament, who was anything but abstract, but cruel, jealous, arbitrary and violent.

The God of the Old Testament represented justice; the God of the New Testament represented mercy. The two of these in balance constitutes perfection.

But the irony of it is too delicious. With the Government, you KNOW its real and even if you don't like it, its twisting of your arm for tithes and offerings to it (I.E. Taxes), you get to see again in other forms. The sweat of your brow squeezed by the taxman appears again on the roads you drive on, in the police on your streets, the military that projects American influence, the government agencies that ensure the quality of your food and medicine, et cetera. It tells you what to do and is flawed, sometimes severely, but on the whole it works.

But the sweat of your brow squeezed by the clergyman, who tells you that a God that you have no evidence for the existence of not only demands it, but considers it HIS to possess and not YOURS to give, and thus will punish you for robbery... er... "lack of faith in Him", and offers you nothing tangible in return is something you've got no problem with?

Both institutions fulfill their promised functions: government returns every hundred dollars you give them with a dollar of material benefit (which is largely what they promise to do) and clergy returns good feelings and life guidance for whatever resource you donate (again, largely what they promise to do). I'm not seeing any problem with getting what you know you're paying for.

That it is even moral to do, even though you are offered the choice of a man being held at gun point if what he is saying is true?

Can't say I'm feeling that gun right now but maybe you're right.

Clearly, it's the GOVERNMENT that's screwing you and not the Church, am I right?

One says "you can say whatever you want but say something that potentially makes someone upset and you'll be arrested" and the other says "you cannot logically establish my existence but give me 10% and you'll get the warm fuzzies." Personally speaking, I like the second guy better than the first.

[Serafine666]

Except that it presumes that using power requires effort for God (aka not all powerful).

Does it really require all that much effort for a king to say "slave, turn the pages of the book for me"? It's not the effort but the pettiness of the use that I'm thinking of.

Just because I exist and interact with you via email doesn't mean if I ask you to do something you will do it. God could prove to believers he exists, but that doesn't mean they would follow him- to have faith in an individual (aka trust) is a much more likely goal for a being that exists.

God could do so, true. But part of the requisite faith is faith in His existence which would be sort of defeated by a magical megaphone on every street corner proclaiming His existence.

That... is extremely petty. God wants stuff from people and is unwilling to give anything in return because he believes that you can do it yourself. Even if it kills you.

Showing true faith would never kill you; believing in something that can't be seen and isn't true isn't faith. But in speaking of the Christian God, we can be sure that it's not the amount of the contribution but the faith involved in it; the widow's mites were used by Jesus as an illustration of great faith cherished by God although two mites is less than one cent.

Laws aren't intended to make people moral- that is why we can have immoral laws and laws that have no moral value at all (like which side of the road to drive on- all it matters is that people are consistent, not that they drive on the right).

They are intended to make people act in whatever way the makers of the law regards as being right. In my "hate speech" and "hate crimes" example, they are meant to ensure that people say the "non-hateful" thing and do not "hate" the person they are committing a crime against lest they be punished. Clearly, someone regards "non-hate" and not "hating" to be the moral and good thing and full intend that those covered by such laws be made to act in a moral way. You cannot make a man be good; you can make him act in good ways but this does not make him good.

[Spoonist]

Nitpicking time....

But the sweat of your brow squeezed by the clergyman, who tells you that a God that you have no evidence for the existence of not only demands it, but considers it HIS to possess and not YOURS to give, and thus will punish you for robbery... er... "lack of faith in Him", and offers you nothing tangible in return is something you've got no problem with? That it is even moral to do, even though you are offered the choice of a man being held at gun point if what he is saying is true?

Not really. The payment to the organization both in olden times and in modern times goes into the infrastructure of the org. So you see it directly. It would build new places for worship, it would pay for the holy men, it would fund efforts to spread the word and gain followers, it would increase the power and influence of your org, etc.
If you bought into the org's concept all of these investments in the org's infrastructure (regardless of the divine) would be considered a positive thing. While if you do not buy into the concept its a total waste of money.
Also if you bought into the whole concept then not helping the org to invest in those things would decrease the faith's ability to gain power and supporters, something, which depending on how you define the deity, may piss the deity of. Some religions have solved this by making donations into something positive, ie you get brownie points for donations, other religions have solved this by punishing those who do not donate, Like the first christian congregation killing members of their flock for witholding money. (Which would be a double punishment afterwards in purgatory).

You are doing the reverse of preaching to the choir whatever that is called.

The fundamental challenge of classic Christianity: why do good acts mean nothing to God unless they're done His way?

Which was solved millenia ago.
The savage by default gets a crappy afterlife. Unless the savage truly shows a christian character.
The faithful by default gets a blessed afterlife. Unless the faithful truly does not show a christian character.

What God supposedly punishes us for is being actively evil. Other than that, god does not actively punish; He may withdraw protections that He previously extended in response to faith but in almost all cases, we are punished by the consequences of disobedience, not by an obsessive deity with a naughty/nice list. My ringmaster reference was to someone who put on a big show and is actively involved in all aspects of what's going on. God does not seem to resemble either trait; conventional Christianity largely believes that God has no direct dealings on the Earth and I haven't heard of ready-made chapels descending from the clouds recently.

That view has no biblical support at all. Not in the OT, the NT, nor in the BoM. Instead it is repeatedly showed that the biblical god, either personally or through ordered agents, interfere and has direct dealings with earthlings.
Also if you accept the argument of the trinity then JC would be an example of direct dealings. (and if you don't then his miracles would be direct dealings through an agent).
The flood would be an obvious example of not just punishing actively evil. Same for the people of the pharao. etc. I don't remember the BoM to give specific examples, but I do remember there being plenty of such stuff there as well.

The God of the Old Testament represented justice; the God of the New Testament represented mercy. The two of these in balance constitutes perfection.

That was one weird way of looking on the bible. I would say that you have to make lots of liberal interpretation of a majority of the passages to have it fit that soundbite.
Its a gross simplification with very little support. It also puts jews into a very bad light for not having "mercy" nor balance. Which I would say is ignorant. Plus then Smith was tampering with perfection.

Can't say I'm feeling that gun right now but maybe you're right.

If you at any point in your life has feared purgatory then that would be the gun right there.

One says "you can say whatever you want but say something that potentially makes someone upset and you'll be arrested" and the other says "you cannot logically establish my existence but give me 10% and you'll get the warm fuzzies." Personally speaking, I like the second guy better than the first.

But you left out the implied punishment if you do not get the fuzzies, which would be torment. (Either explicitly or implicitly like not being in the love of god).

Showing true faith would never kill you;

I'd say that plenty of martyrs would disagree with you.

They are intended to make people act in whatever way the makers of the law regards as being right.

Not really, you have got it backwards. They are intended to punish people who do whatever the makers of the law regards as being wrong.
If you don't see the difference you have spent to much time in bible class. You see in the biblical law you would be right. Those laws are intended the way you worded it. Secular law is not.
One example would be to commit an act not mentioned in the law but still against the wishes of the law makers. In secular law you can not be punished for that and the law makers would have to write a new law to cover that. But in biblical law you can break the implications of the law and thus be punished.

In my "hate speech" and "hate crimes" example, they are meant to ensure that people say the "non-hateful" thing and do not "hate" the person they are committing a crime against lest they be punished.

Again, not really. In secular law you are free to hate as much as you like, but you are not allowed to act on it or limit or decrease another individuals freedoms by said hate.
On the other hand in biblical law you have thought crimes as well. Its right there in the popular commandments.

You cannot make a man be good; you can make him act in good ways but this does not make him good.

Of course you can make someone "be good" its called parenting. Another meaningless soundbite.