Creating God in one's own image.

[Quadrochosis]

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God.  Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?

[William Wallace]

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God.  Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?

The psychology of religion is fascinating stuff. I have caught myself at times trying to justify my evolving politics in light of the Bible. But then I think of what a frivolous exercise that is and get on with my day. As I get older, I'm trying to avoid coloring my views of God by not filtering my information consumption. For example, who cares what the Assemblies of God (my church denomination) or TV preacher Joe say about gay marriage? What does the text say about the issue? Does it say anything? That helps, though no one can completely abstain from making assumptions. Just part of being human, I suppose.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I guess that's not too surprising to read. After all, all those people, from moderates to gay-haters believe they are acting on God's behalf.

What that means of course is that this also happened 2,000 years ago.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.

Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?

[Seventh Son]

it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.

Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?

Pretty sure rumby is agnostic/atheist.

[El Barto]

it's interesting. I dunno how it affects anything though.

Rumborak, could you please elaborate on your 2000 year ago statement? Do you Believe that an eternal God just got outdated?

That's how I'd interpret his remark.  God was/is a construct of man.  The current one, God v. Abraham, was created in the image of men from 2000 years ago with different values. 

It'd actually be damned interesting to figure out what God2K would be like. 

If a man taketh in the intellectual property of another man, without offering fair compensation, then he shall surely be put to death, for I shall hold true the value of all creative works.  Sony, Chapter 7, verse 12

[rumborak]

That's how I'd interpret his remark.  God was/is a construct of man.  The current one, God v. Abraham, was created in the image of men from 2000 years ago with different values. 

Yeah, that's what I meant. If you look at the OT God, He was a clear result of the times he was "created", and the NT God once again conforms to an evolved morality at that time.
Just as the Norse gods were as warlike as their terrestrial counterparts, and the Roman gods were as intriguing and decadent as the people who created them.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

I'm a firm believer the to average Joe the plumber is more moral than the god they worship.

[yeshaberto]

while I completely agree with our human nature to see god according to our personal thinking and the danger therein, and the need to think biblically rather than according to what I think, Jesus was counter culture on every level.  just look at the beattitudes.  they are the incarnation of the antithesis of what any normal person would think.  similarly, the god of the jews was completely counter culture.  they were a monotheistic religion in the midst of a polytheistic world.  

[rumborak]

 just look at the beattitudes.  they are the incarnation of the antithesis of what any normal person would think.

How so? "The meek shall inherit the Earth" or "The mourners will be comforted" is what these days any commentator would call "pandering to the masses". Jesus was essentially doing the 0AD equivalent of promising tax cuts to the middle class.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind.  Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them.  You find that throughout.  Just read Romans 1.

[Seventh Son]

Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind.  Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them.  You find that throughout.  Just read Romans 1.

One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.

[Ħ]

Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind.  Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them.  You find that throughout.  Just read Romans 1.

One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.

I'm willing to bet you're right.

[Seventh Son]

Maybe, to provide a different example to support yesh's argument, is the fact that The Bible really has nothing good to say about mankind.  Most people are prideful and confident, and The Bible really socks it to them.  You find that throughout.  Just read Romans 1.

One of the main reasons I'm not a Christian.

I'm willing to bet you're right.

Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.

[Philawallafox]

Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.

The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.

Human's these days have a limited will. We have our will tarnished and completely infiltrated by sin. Adam and Eve had a completely free will which was untarnished. Because of our completely sinful nature we can't choose to not sin and everything we do it because of our nature wchich is proud and selfish.

What differentiates Christians from the rest of humanity is the work of God in us by his Holy spirit. Only with God's help can we fight sin's subversion of our free will. Unfortunately we can't have a completely free will again until Christ comes back.

[Adami]

I still don't believe the idea of Original Sin, even if I did believe in the bible.

Possibly it was mankind developing freedom.

They didn't have freedom in the garden, they were told they couldn't have knowledge. They chose to knowledge over servitude. I don't see that as sin.

[rumborak]

The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.

And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.

And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.

Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.

rumborak

[Seventh Son]

Well I look at it like this. God creates mankind and their freewill and whatnot, and places a huge DO NOT PUSH button right in front of them absolutely begging them to push it and they do so, making one simple mistake and God freaks out. Like, not just any freakout but blows a lid about it. From that point onward, everything is "Humanity is evil and sinful" and there is nothing any human nowadays can do about it. Now, maybe its just me, but I don't like the idea of worshiping a deity that has everything set up so that my own nature and things that seem natural are inherently sinful and evil. Nothing against you if you choose to worship him, but I rather like being a flawed human. Perfection is overrated anyway.

The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.

Human's these days have a limited will. We have our will tarnished and completely infiltrated by sin. Adam and Eve had a completely free will which was untarnished. Because of our completely sinful nature we can't choose to not sin and everything we do it because of our nature wchich is proud and selfish.

What differentiates Christians from the rest of humanity is the work of God in us by his Holy spirit. Only with God's help can we fight sin's subversion of our free will. Unfortunately we can't have a completely free will again until Christ comes back.

You just proved my point on the issues I take with Christianity. If its in our nature, why should it be evil? I mean, if God has created all of us, he is in one way or another responsible for that. If God is all-knowing, then he certainly knew that this would happen, wouldn't he? If he didn't, then that would contradict the idea that he knows all and sees all. Assuming that much, God would know that Adam and Eve would disobey and eat from the tree and gain knowledge. Now, knowing that much, God has two options.

1. Make it so that the nature of Adam and Eve would be able to resist eating the fruit.

2. Sit back and do nothing and watch the rest of humanity fall into despair.

Looking back, it seems like God chose option #2. Now, God being omnipotent and all, that's his choice to do that. But at the same time, God apparently created the will of Adam and Eve and created everything else in between. If the will that God bestowed onto them was his own creation, then isn't it possible that the betrayal was in essence, partially God's own doing?

I still don't believe the idea of Original Sin, even if I did believe in the bible.

Possibly it was mankind developing freedom.

They didn't have freedom in the garden, they were told they couldn't have knowledge. They chose to knowledge over servitude. I don't see that as sin.

Me neither.

[Ultimetalhead]

The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.

And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.

And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.

Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.

rumborak

This is my personal favorite argument against the bible.

[Ħ]

The problem is that you don't understand the free will that adam and Eve had back then. They had the ability to choose to not eat from the tree. They had more of a free will than humans today because they could choose to to not push the big red shiny button that you must absolutely never ever push (ignorance is bliss maybe?). The Serpent told half truths and twisted God's truths and so subverted that will. Since then humanity's will has been tarnished by sin. It was their sin that tarnished humanity. God didn't tarnish humanity's free will. Human's did. We're reponsible for our actions.

And here's a different story: A tribe sits at night around a fire, after a hard day's work. And the children ask the eldest man how it all began. And so the man thinks about how their life is constant hardship under the blistering sun and they are constantly struggling for survival. So he tells them a story about a beautiful place where there's plenty of food and nothing to wish for, with complete happiness. But why don't we live in that place? Then he also remembers how man and women always seem to fight, and how people in general always seem to do mean things to each other, how one person will trick another person for their own gain. In general, people always seem to struggle choosing between doing the right thing and the easy thing. So he tells a fable involving a much-hated animal, the snake, tricking man into having to abandon this beautiful place. That is, if people were only nicer to each other, maybe we would still live in that beautiful place.

And the children like that story. It is grand, it involves things they know, it has the markings of any good kid's story. It teaches the kids a good lesson, so the parents like it too, and so they continue telling the story. And a long time later, one of those kids learn how to write, and writes down the story.

Honestly, to me the story of the garden of Eden just screams at being a moral lesson for people to be nice to each other, and that women have been the temptation of man forever. Not a historical account of a talking snake and fig leaves. Just as little as there was a girl in a tower with blonde hair down to the ground of the tower.

rumborak

This is my personal favorite argument against the bible.

Good story.  The only problem is that it is easily debunked by Christian enemies if false.  If that's how it started, how did it get legs to go the distance?  Particularly in the first century with Jesus.  All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead.  With the political power of the Christian prosecutors it would have been simple.

[GuineaPig]

That applies to every other religion too, BrotherH.  I mean, even when we can trace Scientology's origins of it's decidedly less than convincing doctrines, it hasn't stopped it from being one of the fastest emerging religions.

[Adami]

Also, christianity didn't matter for quite a number of years. It probably didn't have any "enemies" and wasn't seen as anything worth worrying. It grew underground for a while and then quickly became the official religion of constantine. At that point, it's "enemies" were easily killed.

And don't think that millions of people weren't killed for that reason.

[rumborak]

Particularly in the first century with Jesus.  All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead.

It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.

rumborak

[j]

It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts.

 

Where'd you get this idea?

-J

[rumborak]

There was a thread a while ago about Bart Ehrman who compared the different existing manuscripts. I think the earliest manuscripts just end with the three women seeing an empty tomb, but never tell anybody. Only later version suddenly have this fabulous part of Jesus talking to disciples and whatnot.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

You just proved my point on the issues I take with Christianity. If its in our nature, why should it be evil? I mean, if God has created all of us, he is in one way or another responsible for that. If God is all-knowing, then he certainly knew that this would happen, wouldn't he? If he didn't, then that would contradict the idea that he knows all and sees all. Assuming that much, God would know that Adam and Eve would disobey and eat from the tree and gain knowledge. Now, knowing that much, God has two options.

1. Make it so that the nature of Adam and Eve would be able to resist eating the fruit.

2. Sit back and do nothing and watch the rest of humanity fall into despair.

Looking back, it seems like God chose option #2. Now, God being omnipotent and all, that's his choice to do that. But at the same time, God apparently created the will of Adam and Eve and created everything else in between. If the will that God bestowed onto them was his own creation, then isn't it possible that the betrayal was in essence, partially God's own doing?

God knew that sin was going to happen. I don't disagree. He did make sure that Adam and eve were able to resist eating the fruit. They just didn't. God knowing it was going to happen didn't mean he ordained it to happen. (I'd refer you to the westminster confessions/catechism but I haven't studied it very well yet. Gimme a couple of years ) The basic principle is that the bible says both that God is sovereign and that humanity is responsible for it's own actions.

He didn't just sit back after they introduced sin into the human race. He ordained to send Jesus to redeem his people. Then he chose his people (the Israelites) and entered into a covenant with them to redeem them and even they broke the covenant after they had direct access to him. Then he opened it up so that people of all nations had the opportunity to be counted with Christ's righteousness.

[Adami]

If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.

[Ħ]

If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.

That proves nothing.  You're playing with philosophy.  I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen.  It doesn't violate free choice.

Scripture lends itself to the idea that God knows what will happen even if individuals made choices other than what they made.  I recall an instance where he told David that David was going to be killed.  David altered his fate by fleeing, and something different happened.

You can hit the cue ball an infinite number of ways, and Scripture indicates that while God knows the way you will choose to hit the ball, he even knows what would happen had you chosen to hit the ball a different way.

[rumborak]

If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.

That proves nothing.  You're playing with philosophy.  I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen.  It doesn't violate free choice.

No offense, but Adami's argument isn't just some armchair philosophy argument. If God knew what was going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Adam and Even perceived themselves to have a choice. It was a setup by God, and thus unethical.

BTW, the number of times you used the word "scripture" in your post is somewhat worrisome. Interpreting the Bible shouldn't be an exercise of how much you can shun yourself from common sense and logic.

rumborak

[Adami]

If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.

That proves nothing.  You're playing with philosophy.  I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen.  It doesn't violate free choice.

Scripture lends itself to the idea that God knows what will happen even if individuals made choices other than what they made.  I recall an instance where he told David that David was going to be killed.  David altered his fate by fleeing, and something different happened.

You can hit the cue ball an infinite number of ways, and Scripture indicates that while God knows the way you will choose to hit the ball, he even knows what would happen had you chosen to hit the ball a different way.

1. Sorry, but saying "the bible proves they work together" is not an argument, neither is just saying they work together.
2. If David changed his fate, then god didn't know what was going to happen. If god knew david wasn't going to REALLY die, then he lied to him as part of the choiceless plan.

[Ħ]

Particularly in the first century with Jesus.  All it would have taken was unburying the guy, shepherding him around and proving that he's dead.

It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.

rumborak

I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie.  It's missing in some of the oldest manuscripts, particularly from the ending of the book of Mark, but appears consistently in all the others.  Even playing devil's adocate and assuming they weren't originally there like you said, Jesus still fulfilled all the first advent Messianic prophecies, a statistical impossibility, even if a group of hogeys fabricated the whole thing.

If god knows everything that WILL happen, there's no free will. It's like saying people in movies might change what happens. They won't, it's recorded, we know what will happen. They have no choice in the matter.

That proves nothing.  You're playing with philosophy.  I don't see the problem with God knowing what will happen.  It doesn't violate free choice.

No offense, but Adami's argument isn't just some armchair philosophy argument. If God knew what was going to happen, it doesn't matter whether Adam and Even perceived themselves to have a choice. It was a setup by God, and thus unethical.

BTW, the number of times you used the word "scripture" in your post is somewhat worrisome. Interpreting the Bible shouldn't be an exercise of how much you can shun yourself from common sense and logic.

rumborak

You think it was a setup by God?  God provided the opportunity so man would have free choice to do God’s will or not.  Otherwise, we’d be drones.
  
Since we’re talking about the Bible and how it talks about free choice, I don’t see the harm in referring to Scripture.  I understand that there exists a philosophy that knowing the future somehow violates human rights, but there’s also philosophies that argue the opposite.  You can’t select one philosophy, approach the Bible, and say, “Look!  It doesn’t match up to this philosophy!  Therefore, it’s wrong!”  You have to consider other philosophical possibilities as well.  It could very well be that Adami’s view is incorrect.
  
I certainly don’t think his view is the only possible conclusion from “common sense and logic.”  Even many secular philosophers would disagree.  And by the way, I think that you’re claim that I’m abandoning common sense and logic is extremely distasteful, and makes me understand why people like Vivace are choosing to leave P/R.

[Ħ]

The idea is that God told David what would happen if David continued doing what he was doing without an attempt to change.  It would be the equivalent of saying this thread is going nowhere.  That is true as of this moment, but can certainly change.

[rumborak]

I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie.

I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion, with these kinds of arguments. You are personally so invested in the "truth" of your argument that everything to the opposite is clearly a "lie".
The guy who "lied" here is a scriptural scholar, who I would think knows a LOT more about scripture than you do. Only, that he fell from faith during his studies, which of course means he lies.

rumborak

[Ħ]

And after reviewing this thread, it's become evident that what we're discussing has squat to do with the thread topic.  Later.

[Adami]

1. Jesus only fulfilled the prophecy if you start reading the prophecies in extremely specific odd ways.

2. I didn't say anything about human rights. I said free will. You can't say "well that might not be true". You kind of have to explain. I explained my point of view, and so far the only response has been "yea...well I don't see it that way". You have to have a reason.

3. I like bullet point posts in cases like this, so sue me

4. ??

5. Prophet.