Human is created in God’s image. Therefore human emotions are similar to God’s emotions.
Giving a serious answer with serious consideration that follows serious rules, is impossible with religion, as all the rules are made up, there’s no consistency, and they’re all silly.
This is “no stupid questions,” but asking rational questions about religion is a waste of time. In most religions, the answer ultimately “you are too stupid to understand the great plan of god.”
You can debate interpretation of religious texts, or how best to follow the laws religions set down; but questioning articles of faith is fruitless.
Christianity is especially full of self-contradictions and paradoxes: can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it? You can spend a lifetime poking holes in The Bible, and you will never get a rational, satisfactory answer that isn’t based on a version of “you are too stupid/not meant to know.”
Many religions are less paradoxical, but the monotheistic ones are mostly just an unbelievable shit-show, unless you’re especially susceptible to self-delusion.
No apologies to Christians: your religion is a fucking mess. You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments and come away thinking those are the same God. That the loving, caring one who sacrificed his son for people is the same one who allowed Satan to torture his most faithful worshipper on a bet.
Buddhism and most pagan religions make more sense. Buddhism in particular lacks most of the dependency on mysticism and unprovable articles of faith, and is almost more a philosophy than a religion. Buddhists, I can respect. But Christianity is all sorts of dumb.
Actually, taken by itself, the new testament is mostly OK; if you follow only Christ’s teachings, and ignore the peyote trips of post-crucifixion books, like, Revelations, it’s a solid basis for a society of decent people. But Christ was a liberal socialist, which is why most organized Christianity leans so heavily on the old testament and ignores Christ’s teachings of acceptance, communism, and forgiveness.
Nice … now I need to learn more about Buddhism and use an ice pick to remove all the information I have about the Christian Bible.
The answer will, of course, vary depending on religion and even depending on sect or school of thought within the same religion, but here’s the Sunni Islamic answer as I understand it: God has emotions befitting of His grace and perfection, as opposed to our imperfect human emotions. For example a human might get angry and say or do something that they regret, but God’s anger doesn’t take away from His wisdom (I think Christianity has something about God regretting flooding the Earth in Noah’s time, but islam rejects that sort of thing out of principle). God’s mercy doesn’t make Him commit injustice, as a human might. Etc etc. We humans don’t need a deeper understanding of Allah than this, so Islam doesn’t really get into the details of these things, but that’s the gist of it. This does contradict your premise that God should be beyond emotion, but there’s really no reason for that to be the case. God should obviously be beyond imperfection, but emotions aren’t inherently imperfection; only humans’ flawed emotions are.
Christian theologians believe in the impassibility of God, which means that God does not have emotions as humans do. Then biblical texts where emotions are attributed to God are explained as anthropomorphism - God using human language to communicate his nature and actions.
How the hell do they explain his “love” then? Seems like they create more problems than they fix with this crap.
Exactly, that’s a perfectly theologian explanation, it sounds good, but doesn’t stand the least bit of scrutiny.
Already the creation story on the first pages says god created light and saw the light is good. How is it good without subjective emotion?
How exactly are gods emotions supposed to be different. Does good mean something different to god?Religion is nothing but worthless bullshit from start till end.
To play gods advocate, good isn’t an emotion. Good is a state of being, that could be defined and then other things can be judged by that definition to be good or not.
Subjective? Sure. But no emotion needed for subjectivity.
And to answer your rhetorical question: yes, they define it by god likes it equals it being good. Which is just the ultimate dictatorship, but Christians probably wouldn’t even disagree with that notion, since that is exactly what is written in the Bible.
“There is no god but man.” - Aleister Crowley
God didn’t design us in his image, we designed him in ours.
1 In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created him.
2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of names,that he might be Lord of all the earth when it was suited to Man.
3 And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.
4 And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.
5 And these lesser men were cast into the void; And some were burned, and some were put apart from their kind.
6 And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.
7 But as all these things came to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung.
8 And man saw it not.
9 But for Christ’s sake he’d better start looking.
- from the aqualung album cover - jethro tull.
“God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs”
Projection?
I had a car that didn’t like when the weather was cold and damp. It wasn’t too happy about being parked on a slope, either.
Did the car actually have human emotions? No, of course not, but as a human it was both easy and natural to frame and process it that way.
Instead of it simply being “God made made in his own image”, the truth is probably that there’s more than a little of “man made God in his own image” too.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity. For one thing, your car actually exists, even if its emotions do not.
I’m not sure if the metaphor of you anthropomorphizing an inanimate object is the best one to criticize the projection of one’s own desires and wills onto a fantasy deity.
I’m not criticising.
People are welcome to follow a religion if they want to.
I know that I can no more disprove the existence of a god than prove the existence of one. I know that anybody doing something bad in the name of a god is either lying or being coerced.
Believing that make believable is real is a psychotic decision. That’s just medical science. And if you believe that psychotic bullshit called “God” is real, you need to have your brain electrolytes until you stop believing it such ridiculous bullshit.
I appreciate it might be hyperbole, but you’re advocating causing actual harm to people who find comfort in religion. Honestly, that sounds more psychotic.
I’m taking a guess here, based on your spelling (all those 'z’s) that you’re American. It’s probably worth me pointing out that the US has some pretty grotesque implementations of many religions, particularly Christianity - but they are a poor reflection of religion in general.
I’m not overly religious (didn’t even go to Church on Christmas!), but know a lot of good people are. If they find praying, attending services or reading the literature helps them get through life, I won’t argue against it.
Removed by mod
Was this response meant for me?
If so, what do you want me to prove? That religion exists? I mean, it does - there are loads of them and the very oldest evidence of a prehistoric settlement is a temple complex, suggesting that religions have existed for over ten thousand years at least.
I’ve already said that the existence of a god can’t be proven or disproven.
The only thing I’m arguing with you about is letting people practice religion if they find comfort in doing so.
You’ve advocated institutionalising and using surgical techniques on people for their beliefs. And then called me mentally ill and a danger to society.
Neat. The guy’s argument with you has accidentally leaked into another community, with him replying to me and another poster with ad hominem attacks and desires to see us (who never mentioned religion) institutionalized.
I feel great pity that you’re hallucinations and severe mental illness have robbed. You have even been simple, contextual awareness.
This still sounds like violent conversion therapy. What an aweful, merciless god you make of yourself.
Projecting your mental illness on me doesn’t change the fact that you’re mentally ill
Get right with the world, and realize that your brain is broken and that supernatural magic isn’t real.
Unless you can prove it? Of course you can’t. Because you’re mentally ill and magic isn’t real. Get therapy. Better yet, get institutionalized for the rest of your life so your mental illness doesn’t spread.
Yeah, all gods have been made by man.
Assuming we’re discussing the Abrahamic God, He used to be much smaller in scope; in fact, He was the ancient Jewish War God, back when they had a full polytheistic pantheon. So if we’re going back to the original myths, He didn’t really create humans, nor was He all-powerful or all-seeing, or ‘above-it-all’ in general.
(This is back in the days when Gods were more seen as local clan/town sponsors, like how Athena is the patron God of Athens. He was just a tribal patron god, one they prayed to in order to be safe and successful in war.)
Also, back then Gods in general were written as being much closer to humans, in term of emotions and motivations—again, Greek mythology gives a good showing of this, but you can read a lot of ancient myths and see it in play.
As Jehovah became more and more popular (due to all the wars in the region), He started to absorb many of the myths and abilities of the rest of the pantheon, which is why He seems kind of schizophrenic in the older stories. YHWH was actually the head of the pantheon, and as Jehovah supplanted Him as the ancient proto-Jewish tribes moved towards monotheism, the two Gods ended up essentially being merged with each other.
Still, back then, while Gods were seen as powerful, they were still somewhat seen as limited and fallible. In fact even today there is a strong Jewish tradition of questioning God (albeit politely and a bit indirectly so as not to get turned into salt or whatever).
But, as Judaism grew, and split off into Christianity and Islam, God’s followers began tack on more and more powers and abilities to make Him sound cooler (and increase the power of the Church). So that’s where the ‘all-seeing’ and ‘all-powerful’ Great-God-of-Everything business comes from, really.
TL;DR ‘God wasn’t all-powerful and was ‘written’ to have emotions much closer to humans when those creation myths were first being told.
Going down the God rabbit hole is frustrating and ultimately unsatisfying. Every answer boils down to faith, which is basically belief without proof.
To paraphrase someone: If God is all-good, then God can’t be all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then God can’t be all-good.
I probably sound like I’m being dismissive of people who believe in God. That’s not my intent. Faith can be a healthy source of strength in difficult times, and when dealing with our chaotic world. I only have an issue when blind faith is allowed to override common sense, like not getting your kids vaccinated, or drinking raw milk.
It’s all made up by humans
Is there proof of a god like at all? Who tf is this mf. Also god caused your misfortune so asking him to help is counterproductive
I mean the creation of the universe and the beginning of life are the two big ones, among others. That said you can’t have scientific proof for or against a supreme being specifically because the sort of questions you’d ask to confirm or deny the existence of one don’t intersect with modern science.
If you believe God created this place, literally everything is proof of God. It’s hard to explain a good one, and particularly one that is both good and interventionalist, but the whole “God created it and left it to rot” idea one can kinda understand the appeal of. It’s hard to imagine how this all just popped out of nowhere.
Of course, it solves nothing, as you just shift the problem over to God. But that’s besides the point.
I think the religions that allow for multiple and often flawed gods seem easier to believe in, but if you’ve been taught to believe in some Yahweh spin-off I try not to judge to harshly.
I asked a Christian friend of mine how an all knowing god could be jealous or angry if they were all knowing and the actions of the people they were angry/jealous at were part of his plan.
I never got an answer other than ‘mysterious ways’
The answer to this is going to differ heavily from religion to religion. You’ve already been inundated with the atheist and agnostic response. Christian theology could give you a few different answers.
The Bible could been seen as man’s interpretation of God, therefore God’s will is placed in terms we understand: emotions. Calling God jealous, angry, sorrowful, or joyful is a lot easier than asking you to understand a four-dimensional physical space. The latter is beyond your perception, much like understanding the “feelings” God exhibits, so it is simplified to terms you can understand.
The second potential answer would be: why wouldn’t he/she be? You’ve made the assumption that emotions are bad or wrong, but if you throw out that assumption, there’s nothing wrong with an emotional God. Maybe being “beyond that” is in fact a mistake? If he/she made us in his/her image, then of course we are given emotions similiar to God. Ultimately, who are you or I to judge whether such feelings are good or bad, or make a being imperfect?
Admittedly, I am deeply agnostic myself, because I ultimately don’t buy any of the explinations I’ve provided here. But I’ve taken time and energy to understand Western theology, rather than dismiss it out of hand, and these are the explinations I suspect you are likliest to find.
All religion can be dismissed out of hand. There has been literally no evidence for the supernatural ever at any time that can be verified objectively.
Why are people like you continuing to pretend the supernatural has any bearing on reality? Astounding.
Your ignorance on the topic of religion is what is astounding here. Reducing religion to “the supernatural” is to ignore centuries of philosophy and social theory.
While widely practiced religion, particularly in the Western world, has been disgustingly reduced to nothing more than a series of corporate institutions vying for social and financial power, this does not represent “religion” as a field.
People seek an understanding of the universe, and an answer to all the existential questions they have. Many people suffer existential dread as a result of their powerlessness in the face of the unknown. Seeking answers through religion is one way to quell such concerns and fears. Whether or not you agree with it, it has provided comfort to millions of people who suffer very natural, human fears.
People also want to know what it means to be “good” and live a “good life.” Religion has provided a number of philosophical frameworks in which to seek such answers. If you wish to dismiss all religion out of hand, you’re fundamentally discarding much of the basis for modern philosophy as well. You’re basically left with consequentialism, which has a number of serious pitfalls
Religion is a lot more than the belief in God.
Its just a conversation bro, you can chill out
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it’s all made up.
Theology is not a belief in God. It is a study of the belief in God, the connection between humankind and the possibility of God, and the philosophies grounded in religious doctrine. Saying that trying to understand theology is a waste of time is the same as saying that trying to understand any social science is a waste of time.
You may dismiss the beliefs as “all made up”, but their impact on our world is very real. Is studying politics a waste of time because it’s “all made up”? Or are the arbitrary thoughts and feelings on how the world should be run suddenly more important because we’ve removed a belief that you personally disagree with?
Most theology is faith based and serves the purpose of dogmatically justifying and legitimising the religion in question. And all too often cover up the abuses. Of course I’m aware that there is also theology that follows a more scientific approach but if you go by the number of practitioners, that’s surely a pretty small minority.
Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it’s all made up.
Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.
Because it’s all made up. It’s foolish to expect any of it to make sense or be consistent.
First prove that this god even exists, then maybe we can have a discussion about it’s properties.
He wanted a good plot arc leading up to robots not just starting with robots right off the rip
The answer differs depending on which religion/sect/philosophy you adhere to, but God is usually attributed some sort of emotion, or at least a will, because without it the belief in God can’t serve a societal use.
Say you assume a God without emotions. From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless… So your belief can’t be a religion; nor can it be used to control people. There’s no physical use to preaching belief in God, and not much of a metaphysical need either since God doesn’t care whether you believe in them. “God” becomes a concept like the laws of physics, there’s not even much meaning in considering it as a being. There’s little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all. So all religions will personify God to some extent.
