Does God follow his WORD? Or is it --- do as I say and not as I do?

Worthy of what? Best possible end? By who's standard? What would that even be?

I really never have understood the part where we try to apply our sense of morality to something like a god. Our morality cannot even be applied to other species, let alone a god. Something powerful enough to create entire universes might have thoughts we couldn't possibly fathom. Or none at all. Too many assume assume a god to be just like humans. That it would have parental instincts and a feeling of responsibility for it's creation. Why would it?

 

This is woefully incorrect.
What is reality? According to most materialists, what we see, touch, feel and perceive are all illusions since we cannot necessary confirm the existence of reality outside of our own senses. For example, how do we know we're not plugged up in the Matrix somewhere while having a simulated reality streamed to us? How do we know we aren't dreaming?

So, to say that theists are trying to escape reality simply questions the authenticity of the common naturalist.

 

If it did not, why call such a deficient creature a God?

As for creating for the best possible end. That is a given for nature and if a God cannot do better than nature, again, why call such a deficient entity God?

It may be more powerful than man and nature but it certainly would not be as bright.

Regards
DL

 

Is faith not applied or defined as something unseen and which there is no evidence for?

Is that not an escape from reality? The definition seems to say it does because faith does not point to anything we can actually see in reality.

Regards
DL

 

If you were comfortable with reality, you wouldn't need to pretend there's a magical fairy realm hovering over your left shoulder. Children do that, and adults suffering acute arrested development and/or delusional pathologies.

 

The sad thing is, that most religionists DON'T apply our sense of morality to their gods. If they did, the majority of gods would have been kicked to the kerb centuries ago. But I take your point.

It's actually quite deliciously, hilariously quaint that some theists have convinced themselves that a minor sky god myth dating to the bronze age and local to a small area of the middle east, itself a tiny spot on a small blue green planet, inside an unremarkable and not especially huge solar system, which is somewhere in a collection of millions of others, in a galaxy which is just one of countless others, in a universe which may be so big it's effectively endless, but still is probably only one of an infinite number of other universes, is not only the correct explanation for everything, but that it's the ONLY one which is correct

 

Makes sense, but even Jesus' disciples didn't expect people to just believe. They used the fact that Jesus rose from the grave to convert others. I don't expect anyone to convert without compelling reasons and facts backing up their decisions. Even the bible suggests using evidence and facts when defending Christianity (1 Peter 3:15).

So I will never assume you must believe. I have to provide facts and consistent data when talking about Christianity. If I cannot do that, then you should not be convinced. Period.

 

what is/are this evidence and facts, please?

 

No, most apply their god's sense of morality to the world. Since they believe the archaic morality or a petulant god, that half of them can't remember the name of, is above anything we mere humans could come up with.

The universe wouldn't be so special without a god now would it? All those planets and stars and quasars and things out there. Trillions and trillions of things. Those all surely pale in comparison to the invisible unknowable deity that wants us all to do nonsensical things. I will never understand this.

 

How can you prove facts from a book of myths?

Regards
DL

 

It becomes a lot easier to understand if you look up Freud's Father Complex and recognize that it is your own instincts pushing you to create your own fittest man archetype within yourself. Ignore his other complexes or it becomes confusing.

We all create our own Gods for a purpose. It is just that most people forget and start following some other man made God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

 

You are trying to second guess God. That's harder than a 3 year old trying to figure out why her parents do the things they do, the parents actions make perfect sense to people with the maturity, experience and knowledge to understand. But its a mystery to the 3 year old.

 

To swallow idiocy and immorality and just say we are too stupid to dither it out, and return our heads up some God's ass, is hardly a good way to think. Stop swallowing what is in there my friend.

Regards
DL

 

Don't you go around masquerading as a "Gnostic Christian"? If anyone else is reading this, there's no such thing as a Gnostic Christian. Its a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus. It doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I want you to prove to me, with facts, that the bible is a book of myths. Provide the evidence.

 

Easy. No supernatural being or event has ever been detected.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm merely refusing to turn myself inside out in defense of an illogical premise.

 

Are talking serpents and donkeys real?

Your answer is the evidence.

Regards
DL

 

Instead of doubting the plausibility of the supernatural (that which defies the laws of nature), why don't you look at everything else that can be investigated. Its not like the bible doesn't make room for investigation. So, go investigate.

 

I have and determines, like many intelligent and moral people before me, that the bible God is a vile demiurge that any moral man will condemn to hell, if there was such a place.

My question to you is why you would follow such a demonstrably vile and satanic God?:

[video=youtube;dx7irFN2gdI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI[/video]

Regards
DL

 

Oh, that was an excellent performance!

I'm assuming this video outlines your feelings, right? There's a lot of information missing from the video that would add much needed context to "God's trial", but I've decided not to get into that. What you (and the character portrayed in the video) are doing is using theism principals to attack theism. Allow me to explain:

God tells a Christian, "Thou shall not murder". That Christian decides not to murder. An atheist does not believe in God, and therefore doesn't feel obligated to follow such a command. He has his own reasons why one shouldn't murder another, but they are his own opinions. A Christian man goes and murders someone. That atheist comes out and calls him, "You murderous monster!". Under what right does this atheist have to call the Christian a murderous monster when he doesn't believe in God and therefore, doesn't believe in God's commands? His own opinions?

Lets reverse it. God tells a Christian, "Thou shall not commit fornication". That Christian then decides not to commit fornication. An atheist does not believe in God, and therefore doesn't feel obligated to follow such a command. However, this atheist doesn't see the harm in having sex without marriage, as long as the sex is mutual. A Christian man goes and has sex with that atheist's daughter. That atheist comes out and calls him, "You bastard!". Under what right does this atheist have to call the Christian a bastard when he doesn't believe in God, and therefore, doesn't believe in God's commands? His own opinions?

You can't use theism to attack theism if you don't believe in theism. For you to say "this shouldn't be done", then, by the laws of fairness, you are also bound by what you say. So, if God should not commit genocide, then wars should not exist, because wars are genocidal. Once you start judging God, you place yourself on a higher level than Him.

If you argue the Canaanites were innocent or the Amalekites were innocent, your argument would be completely void of the fact that none of them were, in fact, innocent. Both the Amalekites and the Canaanites sacrificed children to their gods. In the case of children, in and of themselves, you can't wipe out their entire families and then expect them not to grow with hate in their hearts. It's not realistic. A great example is from Game of Thrones (I love this show). Khaleesi sat at a throne acting as the judge of the new country she felt she liberated. Khaleesi eliminated slavery and felt everyone should have been happy. However, one old man came by and begged her to allow him to become a slave to his former master. Appalled by this request, she asked why. The old man replied that he was too old to live on his own and that he had already established a family with his former master and his children. Also, his former master offered him protection from the younger males who would steal his food and his other possessions. The old man was also fearful for his life. So, what's the lesson here? Just because you kill off the evil people, it doesn't mean everyone is happy. If God killed just the adult Canaanites and Amalekites, it doesn't mean the children will grow happy. It's foolish to believe they would, or that they would even remain loyal to their adopters if they were spared. Even if you spare the women, the women will grow scornful and vow revenge. They may even go back to sacrificing their own children. Or those same women could grow their children into hateful people and the cycle will repeat or become even worse. So, what do you do in such a situation? You either spare most of everyone or you absolutely spare no one. It sounds heartless and cruel, but this happens even today. Where ever there's conflict, children are caught in the middle. If you can't acknowledge this, then there's no way you can expect anyone to think logically.

So, lets review. If you call God a monster, then you have to show how you're morally more responsible than He is. Sure, you can admit to not killing anyone, but can you admit to have never stolen or lied or cheated? Can you admit to have never treated another human being unfairly? If you can do all these things and show that you are a perfect being, then you are justified enough to judge God as a moral monster. If you are not a perfect being and have, some time in your life, stolen, lied and/or cheated; If you can admit to treating other human beings with less than an admirable amount of respect, then you are not justified. You are just as much of a moral monster as you claim God is. Remember, you are not a king. If you're going to gleefully proclaim you are more moral than another person while willfully admitting that your morality is your opinion, then you are arrogant, for you are proclaiming your opinion to be greater than anyone else, and are therefore, better than anyone else.

 

Ok. Let's check basic morality t see if you and I can dither out if man is more moral or if God is.

Let's keep it simple. I only use two fingers to type and I tend not to be as wordy as you are.

What is ones best moral tenet, be one human or God?

A tenet that is self-serving or a tenet that serves others?

Regards
DL

 

Well, to say "best" would simply invoke my own opinion.
When it comes to naming the best, then I would say that I have no opinion at all.

 

That was an easy win for me. You do not even follow what your bible tells you to do and you want me to.

1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I follow that good advice and that is why I know that the torture and killing of babies is never justified.

A shame you cannot judge and think it is somehow justified just because your God did it.

Come back if you ever want to discuss morals again.

I think you looked at your answer and it did not match your Gods and you hypocritically decide to answer with your non-answer.

You show that your heart is as vile as your Gods.

Regards
DL

 

LOL.

I just said I didn't have a "best" moral and I'm already the loser?
ROFL

So. Are you better than God?

 

Imagine, visualize this scene...God and Satan are spending some time together, and Satan after having a few too many drinks, wants to place a friendly wager with god, the creator of the universe. So the bet is whether or not this character named Job, who lived on the earth, would remain a steadfast, upright and righteous man, when all sorts of personal disasters came his way. Not just one disaster, but a whole series of them, which took away everything he owned, but more importantly, every one that he loved and found joy in. And so poor old Job becomes a pawn, so that god can win a bet against Satan. And of course, most here probably know the rest of that story.

Of course, this story is just that, an imaginative story, never happened. Now, if you interpret that story in a fundamentalist fashion, you end up with the god that you are referring to in your OP. But thankfully there are other far more intelligent interpretations based upon rationality that doesn't think that fundamentalist creation, god, exists. And this isn't the same quality of god as the god Christ was speaking of. The god of Christ wasn't a fundamentalist god at all. The Jews had the wrong image of god, one that they had fabricated over time, and one that they gave their own human qualities to. Their god was a copy of an earthly king with his court, and the peasants who grovel at his feet. The reason earthly kings have their subject kneel before him, is because in that position it is hard to get up and attack and kill him. Gives the king's guardians time to react in the interest of safety for the king. And so we also kneel before the jewish god, for I guess he needs protection to.

So your OP may just be a clever straw man? That Fundamentalist God simply doesn't exist. For He is far too incoherent, and any proper Creator of this Universe is super coherent. A little rationality goes a looooooooong way.

 

You must not be aware that indeed there is such a thing as a Christian Gnostic. Granted the early orthodox church tried hard to destroy their scripture, notably the Gospel of Thomas, but at least one copy of it got buried in the dry sands and was discovered in the 20th Century. Gnostics of course were considered heretics and not suitable as a religion of the Roman Empire. No sir, a State religion of such as the Roman Empire had to at least be friendly to the empire, and support its actions. And so undoubtably not only were the scriptures of the gnostics destroyed, but perhaps the gnostics themselves were destroyed along with the scriptures.

Why fear the gnostics? Well, they were not very susceptible as being used by an Empire. There would have been no need for a religious organization that interposed priests, between the people and salvation. So you needed the priest to show you the way, for he knew it, and you did not. Now, since gnostics believed that salvation was found through secret inner knowledge, that came from doing what Christ said, seeking, there was no great need for an organization with men interposed, to show you the way. You had to do the work yourself, and no one else could really do much for you, for the journey and the discovery lay within consciousness itself, and only you could do the walking.

No doubt you bought into the orthodox view, Pauline Christianity, the religion of the roman empire.