Nature of God (and questions?)

[AndyHB]

As I said - there are views of god which are logically inconsistent. Now of course there may be highly qualified people who believe otherwise, but they are generally the victims of dogma. 

The way to argue against accusations of illogic, is to produce a logical argument.

I'd have to agree with you, Martin, especially on the latter point - something I haven't actually seen from you all that much.  Usually, you rely on emotion and straw-man arguments.

[tranchiebabe]

I cannot understand why some say 'God is love', there is nothing loving about him in the Bible?

[Martin]

Let's have a look at what you're arguing here, and lets do it logically.

I wrote:

I'm not talking about fooling ourselves, about deliberately believing in an inconsistent idea in order to get the goodies - which is what so much of religion is about. I'm talking about being as honest and open as we can with ourselves about what makes us feel purposeful, of worth, truthfully fulfilled etc. recognising that there are perhaps no ultimate empirical answers within our grasp, but pursuing what we feel.  For me, and I expect the same is true for many others who try to do this, when I boil it all down I come to the one thing that I 'know' to be of worth and that is Love, in its broadest sense, in us and between us.

To which you replied:

And what makes you an authority on what might and what might not constitute 'fooling ourselves'?  Surely different people will give different explanations of that idea?  And what is this about being effectively ruled by 'feelings'?  When empirical evidence shows that our feelings can change direction about as quickly as a ride on a roller-coaster, surely allowing ourselves to "pursu(e) what we feel" can lead us all over the shop.

Your first leap of logic is your assumption that I am in any way claiming to be 'an authority'.  Why would anyone assume that?  Most of what everybody writes here is their opinion. There was nothing special about what I wrote that would single it out as a claim to be 'an authority'.   

Your second leap of logic is your assumtion that doing what you feel to be Loving will cause us to change direction. Why should this be?  Why should doing what we ascertain to be Loving lead us 'all over the shop', and on what  basis do you claim that the Bible won't lead you all over the shop - as people keep pointing out, the God of the Bible is inconsistent, calling for people to be stoned, women to be **** and children to be killed one minuite, and then calling for compassion and mercy the next?

So I replied to you:

There are views of God which are logically inconsistent - They simply can't be true because they are self-contradictory.  One doesn't have to be an 'authority' to point this out - it is simply self-evident.

And you replied:

So self-evident that there are plenty of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with you, Martin.

Why should we logically assume that because there are a huge range of people from a huge range of backgrounds and walks of life who would disagree with something, that it should make it not self-evident from a logical viewpoint?  Many, many people aren't logical in their thinking. So it would be pretty amazing, given the number of people in the world, if there weren't swathes of people from all walks of life, who were not in agreement.

So then I responded:

Quite so Andy.  Such is the power of religion that it prevents reasoning in many people.

To which you replied:

Including many people who are so prevented from reasoning that they are employed by our leading universities to teach such unreasoned thinking at degree, higher degree and Ph.D level, Martin!!

Once again, you make the point that there are many people who disagree with me, this time trying to add weight to your point by pointing to the ones with degrees and higher degrees. I could point out here that the vast, VAST majority of people with degrees and higher degrees, in disciplines which require solid logical thinking, are not religious. There will, of course, be a few who are but then again you would logicaly expect some illogical views to slip through.  So it's exactly what we'd expect.

So far you had not made one decent logical point.

So I recapped.

As I said - there are views of god which are logically inconsistent. Now of course there may be highly qualified people who believe otherwise, but they are generally the victims of dogma. 

The way to argue against accusations of illogic, is to produce a logical argument.

And you replied:

I'd have to agree with you, Martin, especially on the latter point - something I haven't actually seen from you all that much.  Usually, you rely on emotion and straw-man arguments.

So I challenge you, Andy, to point out where in this exchange I have been illogical or have relied on emotion or have produced any straw-man arguments.

[AndyHB]

I cannot understand why some say 'God is love', there is nothing loving about him in the Bible?

Could you explain how someone who is willing to give his life to save millions, if not billions, has nothing loving about him in the Bible - not to mention his choosing a tribe which was insignificant, limited in number, and lived at the extremes of all the empires of the time to do a job for him - and protected them against all-comers, T?

[Martin]

I cannot understand why some say 'God is love', there is nothing loving about him in the Bible?

Could you explain how someone who is willing to give his life to save millions, if not billions, has nothing loving about him in the Bible - not to mention his choosing a tribe which was insignificant, limited in number, and lived at the extremes of all the empires of the time to do a job for him - and protected them against all-comers, T?

And therin lies the difficulty for those who suggest that the Bible is a consistent whole.  The god who makes **** women marry their rapists, who orders the slaughter of men, women children, old people, babies - all put to the sword, none spared.... The god who tells his servants to 'show no pity' to the woman who has just prevented her husband's murder by grabbing the testicles of her husbands assailant - she must have her hand cut off.... That god is supposed to be the same God who prevents the stoning of a woman caught in adultery.

So yes, in the Bible there is a portrayal of a God who is Love.  But there is also the protrayal of a monster.  The two pictures of God don't mix, they never have, and those who try to talk their way out of that just end up being dishonest about it.

[Jan]

I cannot understand why some say 'God is love', there is nothing loving about him in the Bible?

Could you explain how someone who is willing to give his life to save millions, if not billions, has nothing loving about him in the Bible - not to mention his choosing a tribe which was insignificant, limited in number, and lived at the extremes of all the empires of the time to do a job for him - and protected them against all-comers, T?

And therin lies the difficulty for those who suggest that the Bible is a consistent whole.  The god who makes **** women marry their rapists, who orders the slaughter of men, women children, old people, babies - all put to the sword, none spared.... The god who tells his servants to 'show no pity' to the woman who has just prevented her husband's murder by grabbing the testicles of her husbands assailant - she must have her hand cut off.... That god is supposed to be the same God who prevents the stoning of a woman caught in adultery.

So yes, in the Bible there is a portrayal of a God who is Love.  But there is also the protrayal of a monster.  The two pictures of God don't mix, they never have, and those who try to talk their way out of that just end up being dishonest about it.

 

evil has indeed been done in Gods name - and will probably continue that way for some time to come (unfortunately)

[AndyHB]

The two pictures of God don't mix, they never have, and those who try to talk their way out of that just end up being dishonest about it.

So are you one of these folk, Martin - rather like carlos from Brazil (IIRC) on the old Xalt board - who believes that the NT God is a completely different entity to the God of the Old Testament?

[Martin]

The two pictures of God don't mix, they never have, and those who try to talk their way out of that just end up being dishonest about it.

So are you one of these folk, Martin - rather like carlos from Brazil (IIRC) on the old Xalt board - who believes that the NT God is a completely different entity to the God of the Old Testament?

It's not the right question to ask Andy, the God who is Love has been there right from the beginning, found whenever people show compassion, kindness, generosity, caring, forgiveness or mercy.  So you will find that God written about in parts of the Old Testament.  God is cast as merciful, compassionate and forgiving in quite a bit of what is written - it's harder to find stories of humans acting in ways we'd class as selflessly Loving, but there are some, for example there are stories of Love between people - like Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan, or stories of forgiveness, like Joseph's forgiveness of his brothers who had sold him into slavery.

So it's not as if a God of Love is non-existent in the OT, but that the picture is inconsistent - just as you'd expect it to be, since the Bible is a set of books written by a variety of people with a variety of inconsistent views about God.   It's the barmyness of the idea that the Bible is a consistent whole that has no real mileage and is the province of the dogma-bound liar.

[AndrewF]

It is only lying if it is known by the originator to be untrue. If that person believes it,then (s)he is not lying.

[Martin]

It is only lying if it is known by the originator to be untrue. If that person believes it,then (s)he is not lying.

I take your point Andrew, but I think there's broadly a bit more to lying than that. One lies to oneself when one deliberately won't face up to an obvious truth. One attempts to deceive others if one deliberately obfuscates an argument, rather than facing up to it and answering the questions it raises truthfully. A person is dishonest when they deliberately ignore or wilfully deny inconsistencies, and their dishonesty is an attempt to perpetuate the deception of others.

When I use the word 'lying' to describe those who insist that the Bible is a consistent whole, I'm talking about the broad dishonesty associated with such a faith position. There will, of course, be people who, having only listened to the dishonest religious side of the argument, and having not really read much of the Old Testament or been made to consider its deficiencies, will honestly believe that the Bible is consistent, but even a small amount of reading or study really ought to make people ask questions. Once a person starts answering those questions by quelling the questions in their mind, they have started on the slippery slope of self deception, from which it's just a short step to attempting to defend that position for the purpose of deceiving others.

[AndyHB]

So it's not as if a God of Love is non-existent in the OT, but that the picture is inconsistent - just as you'd expect it to be, since the Bible is a set of books written by a variety of people with a variety of inconsistent views about God.   It's the barmyness of the idea that the Bible is a consistent whole that has no real mileage and is the province of the dogma-bound liar.

But isn't the very inconsistency of the material part of the very validity of the witnesses' (aka authors') evidence, Martin?, along with the fact that the different materials are from different literary genres?

As for dogma-bound liars, this means that there must be a lot of such liars, especially when they have studied the material in as much depth as they have, and even - in some cases - changed their views from dogmatic opposition/disagreement.  I would have to suggest that there are clearly similarly dogma-bound liars on the other side of the debate (where have we had this particular discussion before  ) because they state categorically opposing opinions - and both sides of the debate can't be correct.

Finally, for now, I find a lot of the so-called inconsistencies to be totally irrelevant.  For instance, when does one 'accuse' a poet of hyperbole or using poetic licence or other poetic techniques?  There are large portions of the Old Testament, especially, that are in poetic form.  Similarly, there are portions - such as the early parts of Genesis - which are making no attempt to provide scientific answers to scientific questions, but that are trying to discover the often far more important answers to abstract questions, such as the purpose of humanity, the nature of love and hate, of the nature of God himself.

Too often, the detractors - and I would include you amongst this group at present - seem intent on ignoring the whole aspect of the literary nature of the material, trying to simply treat it as a scientific/historic treatise - with all the inevitable flaws that it clearly has when approached from that direction alone.

[Martin]

But isn't the very inconsistency of the material part of the very validity of the witnesses' (aka authors') evidence, Martin?, along with the fact that the different materials are from different literary genres?

It depends what you mean by 'validity' and 'witnesses' Andy.  The inconsistency doesn't, for example, make it any more likely that the miracles written about actually happened.  All one could say that the inconsistency indicates is that the different parts of the Bible were written by different, fallible, authors with different, fallible views of what God is like.

As for dogma-bound liars, this means that there must be a lot of such liars, especially when they have studied the material in as much depth as they have, and even - in some cases - changed their views from dogmatic opposition/disagreement.

Too right! But people have a variety of motivations. For example, I'd say there are a lot of people who want very badly to believe something, who are prepared to enter into a self deception to continue in that world.  There are some of these whose motivation is that, in their hearts, they want the same thrill/comfort/safety for other people that they themselves are aiming for.  Those sorts of people still practice a self deception, but at least their motivation for encouraging others is well meant.  There are others who are pompous, for whom a narrow faith provides them with something to make them feel and act as if they are more knowledgeable than others.  But whatever the reasons, there are a hell of a lot of people who deliberately don't face facts where religion is concerned.

Finally, for now, I find a lot of the so-called inconsistencies to be totally irrelevant.  For instance, when does one 'accuse' a poet of hyperbole or using poetic licence or other poetic techniques?  There are large portions of the Old Testament, especially, that are in poetic form.  Similarly, there are portions - such as the early parts of Genesis - which are making no attempt to provide scientific answers to scientific questions, but that are trying to discover the often far more important answers to abstract questions, such as the purpose of humanity, the nature of love and hate, of the nature of God himself.

But the portions of the OT that we've just been talking about, and that you don't address, aren't poetry!  They were written as law, and law which would have been all too real for the woman with her arm held on the block by two male servants of 'god' as a third lifted the axe. .  Of course you want to divert attention from these, because you know you can't argue on that ground. That's what I'm talking about Andy, it's a sort of deceit, the slipperiness of the serpent, the father of lies

Too often, the detractors - and I would include you amongst this group at present - seem intent on ignoring the whole aspect of the literary nature of the material, trying to simply treat it as a scientific/historic treatise - with all the inevitable flaws that it clearly has when approached from that direction alone.

Smokescreen Andy.  In what way have I 'ignored the whole literary aspect' of the law which insists that a woman's hand should be chopped off by the command of 'god'.