5 ms·

God is an asshole if you read a random bit of the Bible in isolation of the theology/tradition that sits around and explains it. The way I’ve heard it explained

God is an asshole if you read a random bit of the Bible in isolation of the theology/tradition that sits around and explains it. The way I’ve heard it explained by people who have lived this for a long time is a slightly different angle; which is that the way humans were created means that the way to be truely happy is to be aligned with God’s will. At the start you don’t really know what that is, which is why we have ‘commandments’/instruction, but as you deepen that relationship it becomes more and more fulfilling.

someotherperson 4y ago
What you’re describing here is Stockholm Syndrome
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  That's funny but I get what the person you were responding to means.
throwaway743 4y ago
Whatever happened to the golden rule? Do people really need instructions on how to not be a selfish ass? If this god isn't an asshole then he sure is needy in getting a ton of people to have a "relationship" with him/be aligned to his "will" in order for them to be happy.
- edgelard 4y ago
- jhrmnn 4y ago
  He doesn’t need anything. The statement is that there’s a way to live a good (satisfying) life, the God being the creator knows that way, and he reveals it to people, who should follow it (to live satisfying lives)
  - beebmam 4y ago
    It is not "to live satisfying lives". It is because God commands it, and you should fear him.[1] It's very explicit. 1. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%20...
    - jhrmnn 4y ago
      Well, yes, if you take the whole Bible literally, it’s not very nice and not even self-consistent. But I don’t think many reasonable people do that
      - tacon 4y ago
        Alas, the majority of Christians are not very "reasonable" in that way today. Fosdick was asking 100 years ago (1922) if the fundamentalists will win[0], and it is pretty clear today that they have[1]. [0] http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/shall-the-fundamentalists-win.pdf http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/s... [1] https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/shall-the-fundamentalists-win https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/shall-the-fundamental...
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      God commands it for our own benefit, not because he needs it. The Bible wasn't written in English. > The Hebrew word translated into ‘awe’ in the Bible is yirah (יראה, pronounced yir-ah). It often directly translates into fear, like “fear of the Lord,” but it can also mean respect, reverence, and worship. https://firmisrael.org/learn/hebrew-meaning-of-yirah-what-connects-fear-and-awe/ https://firmisrael.org/learn/hebrew-meaning-of-yirah-what-co... >John Mallon writes that the "fear" in "fear of the Lord" is often misinterpreted as "servile fear" (the fear of getting in trouble) when it should be understood as "filial fear" (the fear of offending someone whom one loves). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God
- TimedToasts 4y ago
  > Do people really need instructions on how to not be a selfish ass? Actually, yes. We all do.
  - throwaway743 4y ago
    Maybe as a child, but as a grown ass adult? Don't be ridiculous.
yieldcrv 4y ago
The last time it is recorded as coming here in the type-0 state known as “God” was to make an unsolicited gamble with Lucifer for fun to ruin Job’s life just for being God’s biggest fan, a process so egregious even literal Satan was like “maybe dial it back a bit” That species gains its power from attention, and that one got its competitors killed and won with Abrahamic religions enjoying uninterrupted popularity worldwide, and to some, Christians by definition, its chimera spawn (type-2 state) has cast a perception of love to replace the history of fear, incongruent with its entire recorded history until that point. No other supernatural being aside from God or its current angels did anything with their supernatural abilities to harm humans in that book. They were just vilified for not being God or an angel. Nothing else killed babies if lamb’s blood wasn't smeared on the door. It goes extremely long periods of time of inaction (to our knowledge), it does not act in the benefit of human kind and would be better off ignored, or making it an national security effort to guard against it.
- nickthesick 4y ago
  I’m curious in what you are talking about here. Where did you get these ideas?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    ultimately what it comes down to is "who did what"
cs137 4y ago
This is Hacker News. It is not a place for intricate theological debate. God is bad, money is good, the systemic failures of capitalism can be ignored as long as we get to the Singularity, and we're all going to freeze our heads and be immortal.
- kmmlng 4y ago
  Do you know any good places that would be suited to this topic?
- throwaw32344 4y ago
  [flagged]
makeitdouble 4y ago
A lot of debates around christianity seem to resolve around the back and forth between "the Bible is really dumb and filled with insanities" and "people with two brain cells don't take it at face value, and only take away the parts that don't make them assholes". I always wonder, if these people are smart enough to sift through all the insanities and come up with a safe path that makes sense, couldn't they just stare at the world for a few years and come up with their own sane path that only contains stuff that make sense for them...
- just-ok 4y ago
  Im(vh)o, all you need to do is stare long enough to realize how easy it is to get lost in a world in which you are constantly, intentionally exposed to calculated manipulation of human psychology to see how valuable it is to have a unwavering, structured approach to life and morality.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Hmmm...you're still choosing among a set of systems that were also designed to manipulate human psychology, but survived a few centuries, potentially getting refined. One argument is that a system that survives that long can't be full blown toxic (would destroy itself in the process), but it's still not guaranteed to be better than any other system that also aren't full blown toxic (include one you make up by yourself), until you dig really deep into it. To take an example from another field, full-blown royal/aristocracies government went on for centuries in France, and the country was quite successful from several metrics. But looking back we wouldn't argue it was a pretty nice system that could still be chosen today, just because it wasn't outright toxic.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I think the utility of religious systems can be determined by looking at the reason for their continuity: Abrahamic faiths tended to continue via wars and forced conversions. Dharmic religions such as Buddhism tended to continue because adherents saw such immense value in the teachings that they spread them even despite resistance from authorities. They have both existed for millenia but I see eastern faiths as more useful because they were rarely forced on their adherents. As to your point on designing your own system, I think it's just hard to design something as complex as a religious system well. Instead of reinventing the wheel, people just choose the best among the time-tested methods. For me Buddhism seems to best fit the bill. If you want examples of people designing their own Religions, look at Crowley's Thelema, or for more philosophy-focused look at Theosophy. Everyone has a philosophical or theological code, but most people just use what they are given. Even people who don't explicitly have a system still implicitly use a value system to guide their decisions.
gurumeditations 4y ago
Gods will is for gay people to be murdered and to burn in hell, so Gods will is a very bad example to follow.

someotherperson 4y ago

What you’re describing here is Stockholm Syndrome

JKCalhoun 4y ago
That's funny but I get what the person you were responding to means.

throwaway743 4y ago

Whatever happened to the golden rule? Do people really need instructions on how to not be a selfish ass? If this god isn't an asshole then he sure is needy in getting a ton of people to have a "relationship" with him/be aligned to his "will" in order for them to be happy.

edgelard 4y ago
jhrmnn 4y ago
He doesn’t need anything. The statement is that there’s a way to live a good (satisfying) life, the God being the creator knows that way, and he reveals it to people, who should follow it (to live satisfying lives)
- beebmam 4y ago
  It is not "to live satisfying lives". It is because God commands it, and you should fear him.[1] It's very explicit. 1. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%2012&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%20...
  - jhrmnn 4y ago
    Well, yes, if you take the whole Bible literally, it’s not very nice and not even self-consistent. But I don’t think many reasonable people do that
    - tacon 4y ago
      Alas, the majority of Christians are not very "reasonable" in that way today. Fosdick was asking 100 years ago (1922) if the fundamentalists will win[0], and it is pretty clear today that they have[1]. [0] http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/shall-the-fundamentalists-win.pdf http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/s... [1] https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/shall-the-fundamentalists-win https://dianabutlerbass.substack.com/p/shall-the-fundamental...
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    God commands it for our own benefit, not because he needs it. The Bible wasn't written in English. > The Hebrew word translated into ‘awe’ in the Bible is yirah (יראה, pronounced yir-ah). It often directly translates into fear, like “fear of the Lord,” but it can also mean respect, reverence, and worship. https://firmisrael.org/learn/hebrew-meaning-of-yirah-what-connects-fear-and-awe/ https://firmisrael.org/learn/hebrew-meaning-of-yirah-what-co... >John Mallon writes that the "fear" in "fear of the Lord" is often misinterpreted as "servile fear" (the fear of getting in trouble) when it should be understood as "filial fear" (the fear of offending someone whom one loves). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_God
TimedToasts 4y ago
> Do people really need instructions on how to not be a selfish ass? Actually, yes. We all do.
- throwaway743 4y ago
  Maybe as a child, but as a grown ass adult? Don't be ridiculous.

yieldcrv 4y ago

The last time it is recorded as coming here in the type-0 state known as “God” was to make an unsolicited gamble with Lucifer for fun to ruin Job’s life just for being God’s biggest fan, a process so egregious even literal Satan was like “maybe dial it back a bit” That species gains its power from attention, and that one got its competitors killed and won with Abrahamic religions enjoying uninterrupted popularity worldwide, and to some, Christians by definition, its chimera spawn (type-2 state) has cast a perception of love to replace the history of fear, incongruent with its entire recorded history until that point. No other supernatural being aside from God or its current angels did anything with their supernatural abilities to harm humans in that book. They were just vilified for not being God or an angel. Nothing else killed babies if lamb’s blood wasn't smeared on the door. It goes extremely long periods of time of inaction (to our knowledge), it does not act in the benefit of human kind and would be better off ignored, or making it an national security effort to guard against it.

nickthesick 4y ago
I’m curious in what you are talking about here. Where did you get these ideas?
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  ultimately what it comes down to is "who did what"

cs137 4y ago

This is Hacker News. It is not a place for intricate theological debate. God is bad, money is good, the systemic failures of capitalism can be ignored as long as we get to the Singularity, and we're all going to freeze our heads and be immortal.

kmmlng 4y ago
Do you know any good places that would be suited to this topic?
throwaw32344 4y ago
[flagged]

makeitdouble 4y ago

A lot of debates around christianity seem to resolve around the back and forth between "the Bible is really dumb and filled with insanities" and "people with two brain cells don't take it at face value, and only take away the parts that don't make them assholes". I always wonder, if these people are smart enough to sift through all the insanities and come up with a safe path that makes sense, couldn't they just stare at the world for a few years and come up with their own sane path that only contains stuff that make sense for them...

just-ok 4y ago
Im(vh)o, all you need to do is stare long enough to realize how easy it is to get lost in a world in which you are constantly, intentionally exposed to calculated manipulation of human psychology to see how valuable it is to have a unwavering, structured approach to life and morality.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Hmmm...you're still choosing among a set of systems that were also designed to manipulate human psychology, but survived a few centuries, potentially getting refined. One argument is that a system that survives that long can't be full blown toxic (would destroy itself in the process), but it's still not guaranteed to be better than any other system that also aren't full blown toxic (include one you make up by yourself), until you dig really deep into it. To take an example from another field, full-blown royal/aristocracies government went on for centuries in France, and the country was quite successful from several metrics. But looking back we wouldn't argue it was a pretty nice system that could still be chosen today, just because it wasn't outright toxic.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think the utility of religious systems can be determined by looking at the reason for their continuity: Abrahamic faiths tended to continue via wars and forced conversions. Dharmic religions such as Buddhism tended to continue because adherents saw such immense value in the teachings that they spread them even despite resistance from authorities. They have both existed for millenia but I see eastern faiths as more useful because they were rarely forced on their adherents. As to your point on designing your own system, I think it's just hard to design something as complex as a religious system well. Instead of reinventing the wheel, people just choose the best among the time-tested methods. For me Buddhism seems to best fit the bill. If you want examples of people designing their own Religions, look at Crowley's Thelema, or for more philosophy-focused look at Theosophy. Everyone has a philosophical or theological code, but most people just use what they are given. Even people who don't explicitly have a system still implicitly use a value system to guide their decisions.

gurumeditations 4y ago

Gods will is for gay people to be murdered and to burn in hell, so Gods will is a very bad example to follow.