God doesn't seem very Godly to me

When I show things to my kids, I show them in terms they can understand. Occasionally, of course, I fail and show them things in terms I understand but which they don’t.

Which is God doing here? Is he showing me his love for me in terms I can understand, or in terms he understands regardless of whether I understand them?

If the former, he’s failed–since killing one’s own son instead of sending the “beloved” to hell doesn’t indicate love to me in any terms I can understand.

If he’s showing in terms I don’t understand but that he does, I can grok that–he thinks, for some reason, that killing his son is an adequate expression of love, and I guess points for trying, but his understanding of love is itself hopelessly skewed.

Since God can’t fail, and since God’s understanding of love can’t be hopelessly skewed, it follows that the story you’re telling isn’t true of God. If there were a God, he couldn’t be doing what you say he’s doing.

Why would the master of the universe put such a premium on blind obedience? And why we would call this master “loving” when he created us to be irrepressibly curious only to then condemn us to for acting according to our nature?

Do we model this type of love in any of our relationships? Do parents treat their kids like this?

“Little Bobby, do not eat the cupcake! If you eat the cupcake, I will punish you, okay? If you love me and defer to me, you will not eat this cupcake. Yes, I know, you’re only 2 years old, so you don’t have a mature handle on “good” and “bad”. So I can’t really expect you to understand the gravity of your choices. But, nonetheless, I’m going to put this cupcake right over here next to your favorite toy. Don’t eat it, okay? Because I said so!”

Little Bobby will eat the cupcake. Would a loving parent hold him responsible for this for all eternity?

So Little Bobby’s father had another kid that he threw into a shark tank to correct Little Bobby’s mistake (which wasn’t really a mistake)…and that’s true love?

If you can’t reconcile the definition of God from the belief systems of Christians, Jews, Islams, or whoever, try it from a comparative perspective. How could God exist?

If you are to accept the notion that the universe was created by a vast, superior intelligence, compare it to the accomplishments of mankind. What is mankind’s most awesome creation? That point is up for debate, but just pick something that’s big and impressive, like the Great Wall of China.

What is the purpose of the Great Wall? Originally to keep out Mongol invaders, but now it’s a landmark that serves no practical purpose. It did serve as an effective defense for a few centuries, but its builders couldn’t foresee that it would become obsolete.

If God did create the universe, he had enough foresight to see that it would be self-sustaining for a very long time, whether it’s 6 thousand or 6 billion years. So, God has the ability to see the long-term effects of his actions, which mankind cannot hope to match.

So, God is many many times removed from mankind in terms of intelligence and ability to create. There’s no way we can quantify the magnitude, so let’s just say God is a zillion times better than us.

Now think about the sort of creature mankind is a zillion times better than. While this is also subject to debate, let’s confine this to physical and intellectual ability, not decision-making ability. How about the amoeba?

We didn’t create the amoeba, but we are a zillion times more advanced, as God is a zillion times more advanced than us. How do we interact with the amoeba? We usually study it in a petri dish and record how it lives its life, what it eats, how it respirates, what its component parts are, and so forth. We can provide optimal environments for it to thrive, try methods of extending its lifespan, and experiment with alternate living conditions to see how it reacts.

Thus we are God compared to amoebas. The disasters and plagues chronicled in the Bible can be seen as the experiments God performs on us. Job’s problems and Abraham’s dilemma are generally regarded as God testing our faith. So there’s precedent that God is a scientist subjecting us to horrible conditions to see how we cope.

Even if we wanted to be kind and loving to amoebas, there’s no way we can keep up this level of devotion continually. Scientists get bored and have to sleep. Amoebas aren’t that important.

Given that we are God compared to amoebas, would amoebas ever think of us as God? If amoebas are capable of spiritual stimulation, they would probably envision Amoeba God as a gigantic and perfect version of themselves. Their perception of Amoeba God probably looks and acts nothing like us. Amoeba are incapable of conceiving mankind, except as maybe the really big thing that’s not them.

Mankind, in turn, does not love the amoeba. We are incapable of knowing an individual amoeba’s desires, hopes and dreams. Amoebas cannot communicate to us with prayer. We can do something to upset an amoeba’s environment and shorten its lifetime, but will the amoeba think Amoeba God is angry? Would we care?

Given that mankind and amoebakind cannot interact on a personal level, and we are a zillion times more advanced than the amoeba, and that God is a zillion times more advanced than us, how can we ever interact with God? God is the vast measureless universe, and we are but a speck. The existence of our planet occupies only a few minutes of God’s lifetime.

God doesn’t care, because he is incapable of caring on our level. So choose whether you want an indifferent God that has as much of a regard for you as you do for an amoeba, or one you potentially have a connection to, no matter how childish and unreasonable he acts.

So, God is like the pyromaniac fireman who torches buildings just so he can drive up in his firetruck and be a hero by putting out the fire. Got it.

I’m not sure it’s linear, though. We humans are, say, a dozen times more advanced than dogs – but we can relate on a very personal, individual, and loving basis with dogs.

With dogs, there’s actually “somebody home.” Dogs have personalities. Humans have vastly more complex personalities. God has a VASTLY more complex personality, but he’s still on the same side of the great divide – self-awareness and consciousness – as we are.

God could write a book for us, giving us useful moral guidance.

(The Bible simply isn’t that book…)

While he’s at it the book could get the natural history of the world right.
If someone writes a tome of moral guidance based on his unsurpassed knowledge of the world and how it works. and puts the Eiffel Tower in Rome and said that Henry VIII was king of Denmark right after Hamlet (the elder one) you’d kind of doubt his qualifications.

Voyager: Grin! Or when the book says, “I am a God of Love” and then that God of Love tells the Children of Israel to despoil Canaan with unlimited violence… Well…

I’ll also argue (hypothetically) both sides of the issue and concede that there may be some quality of mind – something like “Greater Consciousness” – which we don’t have, and which a mind must have for God to be able to communicate with it.

We can’t communicate with the amoeba. Maybe God can’t communicate with us, because we don’t have…whatever. (Obviously, no one here can say what it is; it’s beyond our ability to conceive of.)

But if that’s the case, God should have concealed himself from us entirely, rather than attempting what he can’t do. If he can’t actually communicate with us, then he ought to just keep his distance and bide his time. If we’re no more than amoebas, then why is God wasting his time writing books and giving revelations? It’s as stupid as if Preacher Danny were to recite his Sermon to the Petri Dish.

Organized religion is trying to have it both ways. “Humans can’t comprehend God” But “Our sect comprehends God!”

(One of the consequences of the syllogism is vaguely amusing.)

God doesn’t conceal himself for the same reason we don’t conceal ourselves from the amoeba. God sees (by now) that trying to control our lives is a wasted effort. Free Will on our part is not due to a gesture of love on his; it is more a means of efficiency.

Hmm, so God is like a bad parent in a restaurant, ignoring his or her screaming kids as they run around and torment the wait staff and other diners?

If the Petri Dish has a Visa card he’d do it.
God not being able to communicate with us kind of knocks out the whole omnipotence thing, doesn’t it? And if he really can’t communicate with us in a way we understand the religious people should stop telling us what he things about our sex lives.
But maybe the answer is that God exists but is autistic.

God as Tommy Westphall?

More like God is the universe in which the restaurant exists. He doesn’t notice screaming children, much less consider them. Much too small and insignificant to matter.

God has bipolar disorder.

At least my God knows the difference between periods and commas.

Does he comprehend non-sequiturs? Your shoelace is untied.

The comma was correct. The error was in capitalizing “and”.

Give him a break-that’s the closest he’s come to being right in one of his off-topic snarks.

God, supposedly created everything, so by creating a system that allows it, He’s certainly culpable for evil and sin. It’s reasonable to say they are necessary, but they, according to the myths are the result of His actions.

Countless human generations lived, suffered and died before Jesus came round. And God, lets remember, made our primary source of light cause cancer, designed parasites that blind children, and made the average woman rapeable by the average man. Any of those things are fixable, if God weren’t lazy or incompetent. So He’s either those things, simply doesn’t care, or doesn’t exist at all.

That’s stupid. He created the necessity for sin to be paid for. And they paid Himself with Himself to settle the debt. Utter nonsense.

If we’re imperfect, it’s because of God’s shoddy workmanship. And needing to sacrifice Himself to Himself so He wouldn’t torture us for breaking rules He instated is goofy.

The bible is largely a work of fiction, and none of the supernatural elements are real. So your being able to cite it isn’t very convincing.

So it’s not God the father, it is God the guy in the corner booth reading his paper and ignoring everything?

If your image of God is so disconnected from us, why even bother? Maybe there is a god who started the universe rolling and then withdrew, and maybe there is a god who is for some other race (so we’re just an accident) but both these cases are functionally equivalent to no god at all. Certainly nothing to go to shul for.

Do you think God is bound by your laws? For God, all sentences are grammatical!
(Hey, if it works for mass murder being moral for God …)