Why God is Inherently Wrong

But Trixie, aren’t you God?

An act is “loving” if it’s for the sake of another–if you think it somehow benefits the other. It is just if it matches what the other deserves.

It’s interesting that an act of love, though it may go well beyond what is just, what one deserves, isn’t typically considered immoral, but often the opposite.

God is a metaphor for women, Cold, Uncaring, and Irrational, Do as I say Not as I do, Their own holiness has the most value…sitting in the heavens above with maximum bliss, sending people to hell and not caring about anyone’s bliss but their own

Satan is a metaphor for Baphomet, the transsexual (transsexuals are a Spiritual Meme, that is why glamrockers wear makeup) Satan represents the Fetus as Female (Angel in heaven) And his transition to the male hellrealms, kicked out by the females in heaven, and his futile attempts to transition back into the heavens.

Satan is the accuser, and the Tree of Knowlege (Wise One). But automatically declared evil and a villian by the madgods, who do Do as I say Not as I do kind of morality.
Now Satan kind of is evil, because he got sick of pretending to be a hypocrit goodie-two shoes like the madgods, however not as evil as the gods because he didn’t actually create Hell (Earth or EarthHell), just enjoys when people suffer with him in it.

The logic here is paraphrased by Shakespeare best, To be or not to be ?’

The trans personal demands the being , and the intra-personal- the required self sacrificial instinct of preservation.

The simple logic in this is indisputable, and as the saying goes, it is in the simplest and not the most complex that truth abides.

The problem with most major religions: someone else interprets the text for you and sections are taken out of context. That will screw religions up within one generation. The major religions have been behaving this way for many generations. Read without yanking verses out of context, use your truth without prejudice to interpret. Then compare to modern beliefs. It is hard but, if you honestly read original texts not the altered versions, you will find it all pretty interesting.

Easier said than done, Kris. It implies learning an ancient language for one thing. And assuming I can find the originals on the internet, a huge part of the context involves the culture surrounding the author at the time, recent sociopolitical events, the authors intentions, etc.

This is all depends on what “truth” you want to get at. If you believe there is an objective truth that we can trace starting with today’s religious scriptures and following them back to the originals, expecting to find maybe the word of God itself, then that’s one truth. But there is also religion as a product of history, of all the translations, distortion, and skewing–Christianity for the 21st century–to get at that truth, you need only consult with whatever modern day experts are saying.

:slight_smile: well I actually meant original in a modern language. The oldest of the Old Testament.
I agree that you must take all that you said into figuring it all out. It is not a semester study nor just a one subject study. I did not say all that because I thought it was a gimme . :slight_smile:
I do not see, through my readings and studies that the God today is what was intended. Fear and worries were greater back then, death was all around. People would have needed comfort and hope in order to work together and become a society. A priest would not have threatened, a priest would promise hope.
If you can , find some mythology books that date back at the very least 150 yrs. Rare as hell. Try maybe 100 or as old as possible. In any modern language. Then put them beside new versions and " reprints". The changes can be amusing or disturbing. All my old old texts are safed away access is a pain in the butt and an expensive trip.
I credit my grandparents for getting me into social studies, anthropology, sociology etc.
They also brought me to study animals and their behaviors to learn about humanity.

I know some of the older texts don’t consistently use the same word for Hell. Sometimes it’s sheol, which actually means grave, and there’s Hades, which is borrowed from the Greeks. I remember learning in school that the ancient Hebrews didn’t really have a concept of an eternal realm of suffering in the afterlife for those who lived a wicked life. When they used the word “sheol”, it was only to depict the unpleasant state of being dead, buried in the ground, rotting. But you can see how the wording can be carried over to the modern Christian concept of hell. To describe it as unpleasant, horrible, even eternal, fits very well. And for a Christian scholar who came later in history and didn’t know much about the original meanings and connotations of these words, he could easily equate it with the concepts he was brought up on.

Yes and toss in attitude, ability to translate and personal belief, a whole paragraph would be changed. I would not follow a modern biblical God but, I might follow the original since I think the original intent for that God was positive not negative.

Yeah Satan is judged in revelations

Perhaps this is my “good triumphs over evil” showing, but I think the bible can be read (as I want it to read) that Satan learns his lesson and is forgiven

Lets invision a reality where God has the power (omnipotence = he does have this power) to make an “eternal hell” go away instantaneously… ie a heaven where the timeframes of eternal suffering is negligably small (conceptually)

Keep in mind I am not trying to belittle God nor his ability to make any of us suffer for whatever reason

Your thread begins with the most Christian conservative view of hell, then brings out this card-stacking of verses devoid of their original contexts. This is not like you, Gib.

Is this an argument for God’s omnipotence over logic itself? That Hell is eternal yet it isn’t? ← This would be like the rock so heavy not even God can lift it.

Or is this more like an argument for higher orders of infinity? Hell remains eternal, but Heaven is a higher order of eternity (like eternity^2), thus making Hell seem negligible (like a line being infinite but a negligible slice compared to a plane).

It was good enough to answer James’s question. Also, these verses are online. Anyone can look up the original context. I don’t think I’m giving off a false impression of what they mean. They essentially say that there is a place called Hell where wicked souls go to be tortured for all eternity, which is in accordance with standard Christian interpretation.

Did you want to contest this?

Hello gib

Well, the case is then “do we know just and loving in themselves or are they just terms that hide our own self-interest”. So that the question becomes is God actually unjust and unloving or is that my impression because I am not satisfied with this or that?
The thing to remember is that we are placing our judgment as supreme on all things and that might not be the case. We are temporal beings trying to judge eternity. From that perspective what are the defining characteristics of justice and love? I don’t know but I could understand why those standards might be different even if the terms remain the same.

I’ll let Calvinist defend that. I was simply going by what I have read about Luther. Luther grappled with predestination, so I would not say that it is what demonstrates God’s benevolence but His omnipotence and to Luther, Calvin and others, this seemed to be the trait of God that they wanted to maintain. The problem of evil, which has been discussed many times before in this forum, presents the believer with a choice about what God is like. Omnipotent and removed or Loving and limited in power. I go for the latter.

You are nearly there. Simply delete the following in blue from your last sentence and you have a worthy conclusion;“'s justice and love.”

Different yes… but all I’m saying, then, is that such a form of justice and love is, at best, inevitably incomprehensible to finite beings like us–and totally untenable at worst.

What do you mean? You mean, debunk God’s existence, or debunk God himself–as if we were in a debate with him and he lost?

I mean, if God really is as cruel is this–to send us to Hell for all eternity–maybe he’s just a malevolent God–doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

Yes to the first. My answer to the second: sure why not? My thoughts were more aligned with the expansion/reconstitution of the self and or of hell and/or time (i.e. creation of unexplainable constructs of our existence). There’s heaven, hell, purgatory. Let’s imagine God says “lets create something called incorrectland which renders these concepts obsolete”

Ok, so God can defy the very rules of logic. But then how do you prove anything with this. You’ve just conceded that logic can be undermined, that even if you manage to prove something irrefutably, it may still be flawed if God one day just decided that it wasn’t going to be so.

What you’re left with is a philosophy that contains the seeds of its own undoing. It’s own precepts say that, regardless of how logically air tight it is, it may be wrong.

Hello gib

Not always. Sometimes we can be found guilty because of justice which does not protect our interest and love can be about putting your interests second to someone else. We seek balance, in ourselves and in the world. The world we see is full of injustice, of “good” being defined by power. This world is beyond redemption. That is the pessimistic aspect behind Christianity. This cosmic imbalance can only be balanced, in the Christian narrative, by an extension of history where no one gets away with anything and everyone gets what the deserve in spades. If you deserve good, then you receive it in spades and the same with the bad. Justice is about desert, about reward and punishment. Love is the passion of the Christ, putting the interests of the remnant above his own, and suffering death in our stead. As I said, the only question here would be about duration, but it is logically consistent and may not have anything to do with a choice but with nature, kind, what souls are, thus eliminating this from the list of faults God may or may not have.

Actually, it’s worse than that. If God’s actions are inherently incomprehensible, due to the fact that the finite cannot speak of the infinite, or from an infinite perspective, then in essence we are without God.

Oh Gibhowser,

At OP…is why a Goddess is inherently right.

Omar wrote

Life is both fiction and non-fiction so every contradiction and paradox makes sense while it doesn’t. If God is the eternal everything, then he has his cray-cray moments like all of us do. Just how much does his will influence us?

Right, which is what we touched on earlier–that the soul may be eternal anyway, so there is no choice–not even on the part of God–to make for an everlasting afterlife. But still, the question I asked earlier is unanswered: how does a soul end up stuck living a particular fate forever? (<-- That certainly thwarts incorrect’s proposal that God can trump the laws of logic).

In a manner of speaking, yes (although my thoughts on this is that where the infinite comes in, we cross the boundary between the individuated, personal God of Western religion and the universal, omnipresent God that I believe in ← My criticism is against the former only). This still entails that, as finite beings, it makes no sense for us to say that an eternity in Hell counts as an act of justice or love. If it does count as an act of justice or love in a way that we can’t understand, then we can say this about anything. We’d be able to say that whatever seems to make sense to us–like 2 + 2 = 4–might actually be false–that maybe 2 + 2 = 5–and this, taken to extremes, would lead to absolute skepticism (in the same vein as Descartes’ skepticism). And still, nothing is proved by this: it only means that we can’t rely on our own rationality to determine the truth.

This is like saying the world is a dream in God’s head–it doesn’t have to be consistent–but can a dream still whip up contradictions in logic? Like an eternity in Hell counting as justice and love?

Heaven and hell are mental translations of physical phenomena. They are states of mind, not places.
Forever has no meaning for temporal beings. Our beast science cannot tell us what the origin of the universe was or how it will end. Justice has no relationship with forever. Belief in some eternal punishment for some makes God a loser of what He would reclaim.