Why worship a "god" that threatens you?

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

[pax]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

You're right. It's hard to love someone who's cruel and intimidating. It's hard to love someone you fear. Personally, I think it's impossible. As far as God being 'worthy' of worhip and adoration, some people say he is because of the fact that he created us. However, a being who wants to do to the things mentioned in Revelation doesn't inspire love but terror. I don't think the two can go hand in hand.

I think you have God pegged all wrong here. Consider the following parable:

[11] And he said: A certain man had two sons: [12] And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his substance. [13] And not many days after, the younger son, gathering all together, went abroad into a far country: and there wasted his substance, living riotously. [14] And after he had spent all, there came a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want. [15] And he went and cleaved to one of the citizens of that country. And he sent him into his farm to feed swine.

[16] And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him. [17] And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father's house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? [18] I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: [19] I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. [20] And rising up he came to his father. And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and running to him fell upon his neck, and kissed him.

[21] And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son. [22] And the father said to his servants: Bring forth quickly the first robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: [23] And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry: [24] Because this my son was dead, and is come to life again: was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. [25] Now his elder son was in the field, and when he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing:

[26] And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. [27] And he said to him: Thy brother is come, and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe. [28] And he was angry, and would not go in. His father therefore coming out began to entreat him. [29] And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: [30] But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

[31] But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. [32] But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.

God is the father in that parable.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I'm reasonably sure that to extort something from someone else would constitute a sin of some kind according to most Christians but why is it OK when the very religion itself employs it? Most of the Christians I've talked to over the years would describe their "god" as fair, just, loving etc. but extortion (among other things) really strikes me as cruel and manipulative. Is this a "god" that's truly worthy of a person's worship or adoration?

You're right. It's hard to love someone who's cruel and intimidating. It's hard to love someone you fear. Personally, I think it's impossible. As far as God being 'worthy' of worhip and adoration, some people say he is because of the fact that he created us. However, a being who wants to do to the things mentioned in Revelation doesn't inspire love but terror. I don't think the two can go hand in hand.

I think you have God pegged all wrong here. Consider the following parable:

[11] And he said: A certain man had two sons: [12] And the younger of them said to his father: Father, give me the portion of substance that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his substance. [13] And not many days after, the younger son, gathering all together, went abroad into a far country: and there wasted his substance, living riotously. [14] And after he had spent all, there came a mighty famine in that country; and he began to be in want. [15] And he went and cleaved to one of the citizens of that country. And he sent him into his farm to feed swine.

[16] And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him. [17] And returning to himself, he said: How many hired servants in my father's house abound with bread, and I here perish with hunger? [18] I will arise, and will go to my father, and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: [19] I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. [20] And rising up he came to his father. And when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and running to him fell upon his neck, and kissed him.

[21] And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son. [22] And the father said to his servants: Bring forth quickly the first robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: [23] And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry: [24] Because this my son was dead, and is come to life again: was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. [25] Now his elder son was in the field, and when he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing:

[26] And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. [27] And he said to him: Thy brother is come, and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe. [28] And he was angry, and would not go in. His father therefore coming out began to entreat him. [29] And he answering, said to his father: Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandment, and yet thou hast never given me a kid to make merry with my friends: [30] But as soon as this thy son is come, who hath devoured his substance with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

[31] But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine. [32] But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad, for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again; he was lost, and is found.

God is the father in that parable.

No offense, but I'd rather hear your interpretation of this story and how it counters the claims of "god" being cruel and manipulative. Sorry, but scripture tends to be murky at best when it comes down to the meaning certain verses/ books/ etc. in my opinion and putting it in your own words would probably clarify it a touch. If you could it would be much appreciated.

[dusk]

God is the father in that parable.

That parable does address the Jewish interpretation very well. It does not address the problems with the Christian interpretation of hell.
The son is the believer and the famine is some kind of hell. In Christian theology, I live my life, find my way to god or not -> get sent to hell or heaven. Which would mean I'd first have to experience hell (on earth) to have a sufficient reason to turn to God. That strikes me as a very convincing intriguing religion for poor people some hundred years ago whose life sucked. And implies that it is just a religion for those in need of it after all.
What if there was no famine? What if that son likes his life? What if he got hit at his head in an accident and forgot all of about the life prior to getting to that other country?
Why is he supposed to go back to his father anyway and sent to some sort of hell if he is not? Why is one supposed to believe in god if there seems to be no reason to?

The parable doesn't address the so called "threat". If there is no threat, and in sufficient knowledge there is also no obligation to follow the rules. The problem is not that is necessarily an inconsistent believe but that many Christians believe in things that if fit in there make it inconsistent.

At least that is my interpretation of it. Bring forth your own.

[pax]

God is the father in that parable.

That parable does address the Jewish interpretation very well. It does not address the problems with the Christian interpretation of hell.
The son is the believer and the famine is some kind of hell. In Christian theology, I live my life, find my way to god or not -> get sent to hell or heaven. Which would mean I'd first have to experience hell (on earth) to have a sufficient reason to turn to God. That strikes me as a very convincing intriguing religion for poor people some hundred years ago whose life sucked. And implies that it is just a religion for those in need of it after all.
What if there was no famine? What if that son likes his life? What if he got hit at his head in an accident and forgot all of about the life prior to getting to that other country?
Why is he supposed to go back to his father anyway and sent to some sort of hell if he is not? Why is one supposed to believe in god if there seems to be no reason to?

The parable doesn't address the so called "threat". If there is no threat, and in sufficient knowledge there is also no obligation to follow the rules. The problem is not that is necessarily an inconsistent believe but that many Christians believe in things that if fit in there make it inconsistent.

At least that is my interpretation of it. Bring forth your own.

Because there is no "threat". There is only consequences for actions. If you demand your inheritence, you will get it. If you want to leave God's presence, you are free to go. If you squander your inheritence, then you do not have it anymore. If you then decide to return to God, He will embrace you and rejoice in your return.

Where do you see a "threat" in all of that? God gave you free-will to use as you see fit. If you use your free-will a certain way it will lead you to bad consequences. If you use your free-will in another way, it will lead to good consequences. Think of your free-will as a loaded rifle. If you point it at your head and pull the trigger, not good. If you point it at a moose and pull the trigger, good, you get to eat all winter. The choice is yours. The gun is merely a tool which allows you to carry out your choice.

[dusk]

I understand your interpretation but it just ignores the arguments I made. It doesn't answer them.

Some new ones.
Didn't god layout all the options? If he created all of the scenario it is not mere consequence independent of his desires.
It is one thing to warn somebody of a undesirable consequence like if you don't get your money of greek banks it might loose value. It is another if I one created the consequence. If you don't take 1000 dollar from your bank account and give them to me I will steal your car, but if you do I will give you my car too.

And the gun and trigger analogy. What if for me believing in god is the equivalent of shot to my head and the moose not believing in it. Because that is how I see it for whatever reason, just assume it true for the sake of the argument. Would my free will decision be deservedly sanctioned by gods later consequences (eternal life vs hell). If I get to choose I get to choose but I can not change how either appears to me. In a way god did a bad job of explaining it to me through is various ways. Yet I am inherently doomed vs some other little fools who can hardly add 2 and 2 gets it right by accident because he was raised by parents who believed the same while I was raised by mayans who sacrifice a clan member every full moon and I need to cut his/her throat for some initiation ritual at my 12th birthday.
Got carried away but I think you get the gist of where I see the problem.
How am I still responsible for my so called free will decision? And much more importantly how do these supposed consequences (which come later) effect my free will decision in any way?

In the story is a famine but what if there is none? Why would the son go back to his father? What if he forgot all about his father? You didn't answer those hypotheticals.

I hope you see the problem I am referring to. Instant gratification and the delayed ones are different concepts and your analogy doesn't really distinguish between them properly.

[ttruscott]

The tiger story was just that...a simple exercise to prove that one could have full knowledge of a possible danger without any fear that the danger was immanent and therefore uncoerced by this truth.

Of course by rejecting it as an analogy for GOD and our creation, you get to ignore the point eh? It is not such an analogy so your straw man pov is pointless.

I only suggested parralels to keep the context which was, God supposedly threatening us. Telling us that we would be damned if we did something is no deterent to a free will choice any more than the hypothetical tiger was a coercion to the travellers choice especially in the light of the offer on the other hand, of eternal heaven.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

Because there is no "threat". There is only consequences for actions. If you demand your inheritence, you will get it. If you want to leave God's presence, you are free to go. If you squander your inheritence, then you do not have it anymore. If you then decide to return to God, He will embrace you and rejoice in your return.

Where do you see a "threat" in all of that? God gave you free-will to use as you see fit. If you use your free-will a certain way it will lead you to bad consequences. If you use your free-will in another way, it will lead to good consequences. Think of your free-will as a loaded rifle. If you point it at your head and pull the trigger, not good. If you point it at a moose and pull the trigger, good, you get to eat all winter. The choice is yours. The gun is merely a tool which allows you to carry out your choice.

I'm sorry, that's still extortion. Saying "if you want to leave god's presence, you are free to go" isn't exactly accurate because you're not including the fact that "god" is willing to put in a place he created that where we'll be tortured forever. When your only other option is eternal torture then you can't say you're "free to go". That's what makes this scenario extortion. "God" is eliminating any other option outside of worshiping him or torture.

The analogy with the rifle also doesn't work because if you were to accurately compare this to the scenario with "god" then you're only options would be to shoot the moose or blow your brains out. Realistically, you don't have to either in the rifle scenario. You could go to the store or out to dinner none of which would ultimately lead to blowing your brains out.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

The tiger story was just that...a simple exercise to prove that one could have full knowledge of a possible danger without any fear that the danger was immanent and therefore uncoerced by this truth.

Of course by rejecting it as an analogy for GOD and our creation, you get to ignore the point eh? It is not such an analogy so your straw man pov is pointless.

I only suggested parralels to keep the context which was, God supposedly threatening us. Telling us that we would be damned if we did something is no deterent to a free will choice any more than the hypothetical tiger was a coercion to the travellers choice especially in the light of the offer on the other hand, of eternal heaven.

We're not "ignoring point" but rather just demonstrating how the tiger story isn't an accurate comparison because it doesn't address all the variables or deliberately leaves them out. When you include all the points that we brought up (that the man in the tree created the tiger, controls the tiger and would let the tiger kill people that didn't listen to him) it clearly demonstrates again how this scenario is extortion. I would say the only points being ignored are the uglier details of the story and from your perspective I can see why. It doesn't make "god" look very good when all the details are included.

[micatala]

. . . . . Both of these options come across as threats so "nirvana" would be infinitely more appealing at this point.

You guys are free to go and write your own bible and start your own religion.

Moderator Comment



Debate is more than offering quick one-liners. Please consult the rules regarding unproductive one-liners.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[Chase200mph]

I think God doesn't threaten anyone and neither does he need anything from us.
Wow, you should read the Christian bible someday then….. http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide2.htm
1127 acts of evil and 110 mentions of love…some of the false reference of loves.