He killed everyone on the planet except for Noah and his kin. What Aztec god did that?
He set a trap for Adam that gets to curse every person born since. What Aztec god did that?
Only if you interpret those stories literally, as a fundamentalist (BrainGlutton?) would.
That’s not quite fair. You don’t have to take a story literally to be disturbed by what it says about God.
The thing is, though, you have to interpret the stories consistently. How can you believe (or at least suspend disbelief while you’re reading the story) that God killed people without also believing the story when it says that the people deserved it and weren’t worth not destroying?
Or even if you just take the stories to say, “This is what people thought about God back in those days,” you have to take it in the context of what people thought about everything in those days: death, justice, good, evil, etc.
The Aztec gods destroyed humanity four times, the first time turning them into fish, the second time having them devoured by jaguars, the third time by a rain of fire, and the fourth time by turning them into monkeys. And why do you think the Aztecs were doing all that human sacrifice? They were scared humanity was about to be destroyed for the fifth time.
And he didn’t trap Adam. He said really clearly, “Eat any plant you want except for that one”. If Adam doesn’t choose to listen, how is that the Jewish God’s fault?
Now that’s a touchy point right there. Western (and Middle Eastern) civilization has been on the wrong spiritual path ever since the day Father Abraham chose his God over his son. Yes, Isaac was spared at the end, but that’s not the point of the story. The point is that God demanded that sacrifice of Abraham, and Abraham was willing to give it, and we are supposed to believe that that sums up the proper relationship between man and God. Sometimes this story as notated as, “God tests Abraham.” Yes, and Abraham did not pass that test, he failed it. He should have said, “No. If you tell me to do that, you can’t be God. I will not serve you.” And that’s one of the nicer stories in the Old Testament.
And don’t get me started on the New Testament, with the doctrine of Hell! Lots of Christians say, “I believe in the Bible so I believe in Hell; but because I believe in God’s mercy, I am sure Hell is empty.” That’s a cheat. If Christianity means anything it means following the teachings of Jesus, and the red letters of the gospels leave no doubt that Jesus believe that there is a Hell and that damned human souls are suffering there, forever, amen. If you take Hell out of Christianity, what you’ve got left, whatever value it may have, is not Christianity.
And that way of thinking is embedded in all the Yahvist religions. They all have their good points, indeed they have – Jewish ethics, Christian lovingkindness, Islamic righteousness – but in spiritual terms, all of them are fundamentally corrupt at the core and cannot be redeemed. A plague on all their houses! :mad:
I am not an absolute atheist. I do not rule out the possibility that there might be a true God in the universe. But, if there is, I cannot believe he is the Bible’s God or has anything in common with the Bible’s God. El Shaddai/Yahweh/Allah is an abomination. The sooner this world is cleansed of his name, the better off we shall be.
And why did God put that silly tree in the Garden in the first place? And why do we all have to inherit Adam’s sin?
:rolleyes: Same way I can read Mein Kampf without buying into Hitler’s insane delusions about the International Jewish Communist Conspiracy.
Supposedly, unless he ate the apple, he had no knowledge of good or evil. He didn’t have the judgement to be held responsible.
Ignorance fought. I didn’t know that.
If I deliberately put temptation into my child’s path, knowing not only that she will be tempted but that she will give in and her life will be permanently damaged, and the lives of her children will be as well, then I’m an evil bitch.
If it’s too evil for me to do, it’s way too evil for a being that is alleged to be benevolent and perfect. I’m just an imperfect sinner, after all.
If there is an omnipotent omniscient god, then anything that happens is with that god’s permission. Gerbils love their children more.
“Inheriting” Adam’s sin is a Christian idea, not a Jewish one. Humanity inherit’s Adam and Eve’s punishment…we have to work for food, and childbirth is painful, and we no longer are in full communion with God, but not Adam’s sin.
You’re assuming that the tree was put there to be a temptation, and that God knew that Adam and Eve would give into the temptation.
I’m afraid I don’t see your point.
My point is that if you read a story that says “God saw that all the people except for Noah were totally corrupt and decided to destroy them all,” it’s not fair to focus on the part about God destroying them all and ignore the part about them being totally corrupt.
I’m not in favour of the death penalty. And there are few things I see as more morally corrupt than mass murder. Besides, were everybody corrupt? Including the children? For that matter, what about the animals who drowned? Won’t somebody think about the hedgehogs?
I suppose that in some kind of greater view, the actions of the old testament god might be seen as OK. After all, I don’t think of myself as evil when I use antibiotics which kill countless bacteria. But when I read that book, I can only interpret the actions of the main characters in the light of my human understanding and my human view of morality. And seen in that light, I can’t see how it’s possible to call the god described there good.
So the defense is that God, omnipotent omniscient God, didn’t know (negating omniscience) and had no choice about whether to put the tree there (negating omnipotence)?
The defense is that the tree was put there for them to eat from later, when they were ready. Adam and Eve chose not to wait, but that was their choice. If you create beings that can make moral choices, sometimes they’ll make the wrong ones.
Without eating from the tree and getting the knowledge of good and evil, how could they make moral choices ?
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil didn’t give them the ability to make moral choices, exactly. What it did was to give them desires. Before they ate of the fruit, they were rational, and could make their choices based, not on what they wanted, but on what they decided was best. Then they eat the fruit, and they become subject to these desires.
Perhaps not, but nor is it fair to simply accept “and God decided to destroy them all” as something that follows naturally or logically, as a just or necessary solution.
Both of those are very broad, even inventive, readings of the text.
I know – that’s one of the many reasons why I feel far less hostility to Judaism than to Christianity or Islam. (I still do hold something of a grudge against Judaism because I blame it for the other two.) But the God of the OT alone is still an unrighteous bastard.