Philosophy Now Forum

Wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Wyman wrote: The OT does not purport to be writing parables, but like the later disciples, relaying history.

And people will swear that the "Urban Legend" they are telling is actually true, and happened to a relative of a friend or some such twice removed person, when the story has been floating around since before they were born. It may have happened at sometime in the distant past, but has been enhanced over many years of retelling. The OT stories were not written down at the time of the event, but were finally written down after many centuries of retelling and enhancement.

So, far from claiming that the OT is the word of God, you are claiming the other extreme, that nothing in it ought to trusted? I would agree to that statement!

I would agree that the OT stories should not be accepted as historical fact, but like parables they can teach valuable lessons about human relationships. I would contend that the violent acts attributed to God should be seen as enhancements to make the lessons more meaningful to humans, who have a violent nature, and might not respond to a kinder, gentler image of God.

thedoc wrote:
I would agree that the OT stories should not be accepted as historical fact, but like parables they can teach valuable lessons about human relationships. I would contend that the violent acts attributed to God should be seen as enhancements to make the lessons more meaningful to humans, who have a violent nature, and might not respond to a kinder, gentler image of God.

OK, Aesop wrote parables. Thucydides wrote history. Homer wrote the first 'historical novel.' I guess you are claiming that whoever wrote the OT was like Homer. That may be true, but it's not a position I see a religious person adopting (at least not Muslim, Christian or Jew).

Wyman wrote:

thedoc wrote: I would agree that the OT stories should not be accepted as historical fact, but like parables they can teach valuable lessons about human relationships. I would contend that the violent acts attributed to God should be seen as enhancements to make the lessons more meaningful to humans, who have a violent nature, and might not respond to a kinder, gentler image of God.

OK, Aesop wrote parables. Thucydides wrote history. Homer wrote the first 'historical novel.' I guess you are claiming that whoever wrote the OT was like Homer. That may be true, but it's not a position I see a religious person adopting (at least not Muslim, Christian or Jew).

Perhaps I have encountered more religious people than you, I have met people who accept the Bible or whatever religious text they follow, as the literal truth, and I have encountered those who accept that they are just stories and not literal historic fact. It is primarily Christians that I have met that accept that the Bible might not be the literal truth.

I have failed my readers. I ask why god is so violent and get explanations on why humans are so violent. But Humans are not gods and so can not be responsible for the destruction of galaxies. Nor are human's responsible for the global mass extinctions the earth has encountered such as the well known dinosaur extinction.And there are worse extinctions of life than that by the way. Nor are Humans responsible for the some seriously violent predatory, killing behavior of non humans. Abraham's God is.

Yes humans are violent, but this is not about Humans... this is about the nature of God. Perhaps, because it is claimed that Humans are made it God's likeness, with free will comparable to God's free will, it follows that a violent god would create a violent Man also, in the same way that it creates violent non humans.

Remember... this is not about the Nature of Humans which is better described as violently territorial, rather, this is about the Nature of Abraham's God. To understand the nature of god, one must look to that which he created... the Universe... and the laws he created which control that Universe... and across the board, it is most obvious that Abraham's God is most violent.

Sappho de Miranda wrote:I have failed my readers. I ask why god is so violent and get explanations on why humans are so violent. But Humans are not gods and so can not be responsible for the destruction of galaxies. Nor are human's responsible for the global mass extinctions the earth has encountered such as the well known dinosaur extinction.And there are worse extinctions of life than that by the way. Nor are Humans responsible for the some seriously violent predatory, killing behavior of non humans. Abraham's God is.

Yes humans are violent, but this is not about Humans... this is about the nature of God. Perhaps, because it is claimed that Humans are made it God's likeness, with free will comparable to God's free will, it follows that a violent god would create a violent Man also, in the same way that it creates violent non humans.

Remember... this is not about the Nature of Humans which is better described as violently territorial, rather, this is about the Nature of Abraham's God. To understand the nature of god, one must look to that which he created... the Universe... and the laws he created which control that Universe... and across the board, it is most obvious that Abraham's God is most violent.

In my reading of the OP I thought I detected the implication that violence was evil or at least a bad thing, perhaps I was wrong. Yes nature involves one creature eating another in a violent act. But this is just the way nature is and evil or bad have no meaning there, only man's intention can be evil or bad. If you accept that God created the Universe then you accept that God created it as is with the existing processes as is. The Universes was created with certain processes that has resulted in humanity, as far as we know in only one place. If an intelligence comparable to humanity has arisen somewhere or somewhen else we have no knowledge of it. According to religion God created humanity as peaceful non-violent beings and then gave them free will, and according to most religions, that has led to violent acts by humans that are in conflict with God's intentions. So do you try to read Gods nature from humans after the fall, or as originally created, according to most sacred writings. It is my understanding that humanity was created peaceful and non-violent but has deteriorated into violence after the fall, and God was displeased and tried to lead humanity back to a peaceful, non-violent existence.

Personally, I believe the bible was beautifully written for man to know the heart of man, including himself. Dinosaurs and extinction, Stories of abraham, the universe and it's demise are all just forms of entertainment for us to think about.

I don't know if there is a God, as none has made his appearance known to me. However, as a person raised with the church's influence, I have grown to ask the same questions. Personally, I believe If there is a God, and the bible is his words, then I believe any interpretation has to revolve around the 10 commandments. So if you are reading a story and your misdirected mind leads you to believe God is evil and created us in his image to do evil, then I think it's a clear indicator that it's you that has evil thoughts, and not god. The 10 commandments are beautiful. And since they ARE Commandments....it just makes sense to heed them while interpreting the bible in the quest to know god.

Sappho de Miranda wrote:The question: Iff (if and only if) Abraham's God exists, why is It so violent.

This speaks to the 'nature of god' as evidenced in the universe. Proponents of Abraham's God claim him to be the Creator of the Universe. The Universe is exceedingly violent. Therefore the nature of Abraham's God must be exceedingly violent.

Is this in dispute?

Anything that would create such frail entities, such as humans are, can not really be that violent. At least not for any long term excitement. Assuming that excitement in witnessing the destruction of that which was created is the goal. To believe that life was created just to be destroyed, seems kind of trivial, in the face of the vastness of the cosmos. In it's vastness, why not much more life to ensure the thrill lasts. Entities comprised of much harder elements would be much more fun to destroy as it would require more than a relative feather to do. They could be smashed between two asteroids of iron. How about hurling a planet of inconel entities into the event horizon of a black hole, that would be fun. But fleshy entities, made mostly of water, are so easily destroyed by accident in a cosmos such as this one. Do any humans create things, for them just to be destroyed?

I got it, it would be much better to create many planets within close proximity, allowing easy transportation between them, and ever various entities of different toughness, such that a creator could watch them all destroy one another in all the various methods that ever continuous variables would allow.

Or how about creating and destroying planets, every second, to get the most bangs for the time.

No, actually I think the question absurd, why create just to destroy. Why such an infinite scale for the cosmos, just to deal violence to such a infinitesimally small entity, relatively speaking?

Answer me this: Is your god absurd, by a puny humans approximation?

Oh no, now I've gone and done it, here comes his thumb...

...wait I'm still here...

...I guess it does it's killing on it's own terms...

...but for a creator so long lived, where's the fun at such a slow killing rate?

Come on lord, lets step it up, will you? As there's no real intelligent life on this planet anyway!

Abraham?? Sheesh!! A story of a man that calls killing his son as 'his' sacrifice. Sorry Abraham, but I think you got the cart before the horse. Truly 'your' sacrifice would be 'you' cutting your own throat. Now that would be fun.

Here, let me make a true sacrifice, I'll kill off all the people of the earth but me. Huh?

Goodness Gracious!!! The insanity!!! The absurdity!!!

Let me go crawl into a hole and die...

I quit!!!