The God of the Bible

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The God of the Bible

OK I can't remember where I read or heard this, but it was recently - "The God of the Bible is the most vile character in all fiction." I agree. Any agreement or can anyone think of a fictional character worse than the God of the Bible?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
I agree.

I agree.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline

MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: OK I

MattShizzle wrote:
OK I can't remember where I read or heard this, but it was recently - "The God of the Bible is the most vile character in all fiction." I agree. Any agreement or can anyone think of a fictional character worse than the God of the Bible?

I agree too, Matt.  He's even worse than the evil witch in The Sleeping Beauty.  He's worse than The Hitcher.  Worse than Hitler and I know Hitler was real but I had to add him because he's pretty bad.  Certainly worse than the devil.  The devil just tempts people to sin, he doesn't go around killing people for doing so. 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle, if I remember

MattShizzle, if I remember right, that quote is from Dawkins. I'm too lazy to look it up though.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Any

MattShizzle wrote:
Any agreement or can anyone think of a fictional character worse than the God of the Bible?

Allah? Or is that redundant?


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: MattShizzle,

MrRage wrote:
MattShizzle, if I remember right, that quote is from Dawkins. I'm too lazy to look it up though.

 Yes, it's from The God Delusion and it's the very first sentence in chapter one, I think. 

-“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

 

 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think you are right. It

I think you are right. It was long ago I read "The God Delusion", but I reread it numerous times. Allah is bad too, but not much different from the God of the Bible. I was more thinking of coming up with a character worse than the God of the Bible where the Author admits the Character is fictional.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Iruka. It appears to

Thanks Iruka. It appears to be so. I kind of thought it was Richard Dawkins before I posted but for some reason I wasn't nearly sure enough to even say maybe.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Hmm, I can't think of one

Hmm, I can't think of one that already exists. It's kinda hard for humans to do worse than God.


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If God is the most valuable,

If God is the most valuable, all-satisfying, infinitely worthy being, then offending Him (i.e. sinning) is deserving of infinite punishment. This idea might be hard to comprehend, especially the "infinity" part, because most likely you're going to compare offending God to offending another human being.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: infinitely

KevenJ wrote:
infinitely worthy being,

I would call him that since he can be so easily offended.

KevenJ wrote:
is deserving of infinite punishment.

How, how is my minute finite sins to this ALL POWERFUL INFINTESIMAL BIG DADDY equal to, the ETERNAL TOURTURE of me?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
You may say your sins are

You may say your sins are "minute" and "finite" but what sin is, is rebellion against God. Treason. Even by human standards, treason is not dealt with lightly. Your treason (and mine) are against the most valuable, most high God.


Tyler
Tyler's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
The Demiurge If I would

The Demiurge

If I would peacefully be able to say my part, I'd like to say that to me, there is a difference between the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament) and the Three Logos (God of the New Testament).

'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - Voltaire


V1per41
V1per41's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
Tyler wrote: The

Tyler wrote:

The Demiurge

If I would peacefully be able to say my part, I'd like to say that to me, there is a difference between the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament) and the Three Logos (God of the New Testament).

I thought they were the same god.  Was I wrong in this assumption? 

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: You may say

KevenJ wrote:
You may say your sins are "minute" and "finite" but what sin is, is rebellion against God. Treason. Even by human standards, treason is not dealt with lightly. Your treason (and mine) are against the most valuable, most high God.

I fail to see how me thinking:

- "Wow, that woman is hot!"

- "Boss is so stupid, I'd kill him! But I have to stand being stuck here with him!"

- "F**k!"

- "You dumb s**t!"

- "Damn, that's a fine car this young man's got. I want one too!"

- "I'm thinking of robbing a bank... Damn, that would be so adventurous... OK, back to work now."

...is a rebellion against God. Or treason.

 

To hold one against his instincts and natural rights is called "slavery" or "time in jail", whichever the case.

 

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
And if he is so upset by

And if he is so upset by people not believing in him, why doesn't he provide irrefutable evidence that he exists?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: And if

MattShizzle wrote:
And if he is so upset by people not believing in him, why doesn't he provide irrefutable evidence that he exists?

Because:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

:P 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
V1per41 wrote:

V1per41 wrote:
Tyler wrote:

The Demiurge

If I would peacefully be able to say my part, I'd like to say that to me, there is a difference between the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament) and the Three Logos (God of the New Testament).

I thought they were the same god. Was I wrong in this assumption?

Naw, I think what we have here is a dispensationalist. Wheeeee! This is pretty easy to refute. I think what Demiurge is trying to say is that we live under the new covenant or New Testament.

If god is perfect, there would have been no need for a new covenant because the first covenant would have been perfect.

For that matter, Adam would have been incapable of sinning. Before you start screaming, "Free Willy! Free Willy!"...er, I mean, "Free will! Free will!" I'd like to point out that if god were perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevolent he could have set things up in such a way as to preserve free will and yet kept Adam and Eve from sinning.

I just had one of those "I can't believe I'm arguing about this shit" moments. Smiling This is the 21st century. Why are we still arguing about this shit???? The whole Adam and Eve story is ridiculous.

I guess people were tolerant of this nonsense for far too long. If someone else had taken a stand, maybe I wouldn't have been raised to believe shit like this. Hoo boy.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think philisophically the

I think philisophically the Calvinists have the strongest case against this. You say that God screwed up with the old covenant, with adam and eve, so he had to make a new covenant and a new adam (Christ). A Calvinist would say that Christ was the plan from the beginning. Things happend just how they were supposed to. The most glorifying, merciful, loving single act of God was the cross of Jesus Christ, which would not have happend without the fall of Adam. If man had not fallen, then there would be no need for a redemption. God's purpose is not to exalt man....but exalt himself. Now you might say, "This is stupid, because that means God is selfish, and everyone knows that selfishness is an imperfection" or something to that effect.  However, the most loving thing God can do is say, "Look at Me! Look at Me!" because God is the only all-satisfying, infinitely worth, perfectly beautiful being. When God gets praise from us, we get joy in Him. That's the simplified Christian arguement at least.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually the Cruci-FICTION

Actually the Cruci-FICTION had it ever happened, would be a stupid act. He had himself tortured in order to save people from himself for violating rules that he made, when he knew what was going to happen. Who exactly was he trying to impress? Imagine if one of your friends did something to piss you off - what would make more sense:

1. Just forgive and forget.

2. Cut one of your fingers off and if they accept it as a gift forgive them - if they look at you like oyu're a nut or don't accept it or whatever - beat the crap out of them.

And at least your friend knows for a fact you exist!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle

MattShizzle wrote:

Actually the Cruci-FICTION had it ever happened, would be a stupid act. He had himself tortured in order to save people from himself for violating rules that he made, when he knew what was going to happen. Who exactly was he trying to impress? Imagine if one of your friends did something to piss you off - what would make more sense:

1. Just forgive and forget.

2. Cut one of your fingers off and if they accept it as a gift forgive them - if they look at you like oyu're a nut or don't accept it or whatever - beat the crap out of them.

And at least your friend knows for a fact you exist!

KevenJ, you have just been pwned by MattShizzle. How does it feel? Eye-wink

Seriously, that is one fucked-up set of rules for a supposedly all-knowing, all-loving god: Accept this blood sacrifice (in other words, KISS MY ASS) or be tortured for eternity.

I mentioned free will earlier. This "choice" is no choice at all. Therefore, it negates the whole idea of free will...but I guess Calivinists aren't terribly concerned with free will since they're into predestination.

Whether or not you're concerned about free will, it's a seriously fucked-up world view.  Christianity is nothing but a pagan death / blood cult.  It only survived because it was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote:

KevenJ wrote:
Even by human standards, treason is not dealt with lightly.

Oh noes, I banged another man, that's high treason against humanity.

 

I believed in a pantheon, that's horrid.

 

Again, your god is a whiney dick, all the other gods probably picked on him when he was little. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Tyler
Tyler's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori

Iruka Naminori wrote:
V1per41 wrote:
Tyler wrote:

The Demiurge

If I would peacefully be able to say my part, I'd like to say that to me, there is a difference between the Demiurge (God of the Old Testament) and the Three Logos (God of the New Testament).

I thought they were the same god. Was I wrong in this assumption?

Naw, I think what we have here is a dispensationalist. Wheeeee! This is pretty easy to refute. I think what Demiurge is trying to say is that we live under the new covenant or New Testament.

If god is perfect, there would have been no need for a new covenant because the first covenant would have been perfect.

For that matter, Adam would have been incapable of sinning. Before you start screaming, "Free Willy! Free Willy!"...er, I mean, "Free will! Free will!" I'd like to point out that if god were perfect, omnipotent and omnibenevolent he could have set things up in such a way as to preserve free will and yet kept Adam and Eve from sinning.

I just had one of those "I can't believe I'm arguing about this shit" moments. Smiling This is the 21st century. Why are we still arguing about this shit???? The whole Adam and Eve story is ridiculous.

I guess people were tolerant of this nonsense for far too long. If someone else had taken a stand, maybe I wouldn't have been raised to believe shit like this. Hoo boy.

No, that's not what I was trying to say. I was referring to Gnosticism.

'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - Voltaire


Adam Burnfin
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: I think

KevenJ wrote:
I think philisophically the Calvinists have the strongest case against this. You say that God screwed up with the old covenant, with adam and eve, so he had to make a new covenant and a new adam (Christ). A Calvinist would say that Christ was the plan from the beginning. Things happend just how they were supposed to. The most glorifying, merciful, loving single act of God was the cross of Jesus Christ, which would not have happend without the fall of Adam. If man had not fallen, then there would be no need for a redemption. God's purpose is not to exalt man....but exalt himself. Now you might say, "This is stupid, because that means God is selfish, and everyone knows that selfishness is an imperfection" or something to that effect.  However, the most loving thing God can do is say, "Look at Me! Look at Me!" because God is the only all-satisfying, infinitely worth, perfectly beautiful being. When God gets praise from us, we get joy in Him. That's the simplified Christian arguement at least.

 

I don't know about all of you, but when I read that Keven actually said "However, the most loving thing God can do is say, "Look at Me! Look at Me!" because God is the only all-satisfying, infinitely worth, perfectly beautiful being" it hit me almost the same way the adrenaline does, but as a huge blow of absurdity. How freaking arrogant is that?!? And I know a Christian won't understand this, because they approach this from a completely different stance, but holy hell! Actually, my brother and I were talking about God and Christianity a few months back in Chicago, but were going to the salvation army to look for cheap books and old clothes, and he said to me something un-able for me to quote (not because it was super intelligent, but because of it being months ago), but he said what a Christian SHOULD say was basically what Keven said. We both got a big kick out of that, and I got an even bigger kick just now out of that fact that a person actually proposed this.

 

 

Dios ha Muerto. -??? (teehee)
----------------------
"Solipsism is crazy". ... haha.


Adam Burnfin
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-09-30
User is offlineOffline
The Problem:

The problem is clearly to me, a combination of psychological indoctrination, and ill-logic, which is only in being, in people, because they have been partially or even completely brain-washed with the infatuation of a blissfull ever-existance.

Dios ha Muerto. -??? (teehee)
----------------------
"Solipsism is crazy". ... haha.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
This argument about a sin

This argument about a sin being an infinite crime because God is perfect seems to me to be not quite thought out.

My sins, if they are in fact actually wrong, do have actual effects and consequences. But they must be finite, at least within the natural realm. So, what happens to them when God sees them (assming God exists)? Well, it seems like God projects this finite act onto his infinite self. And if God is omniscient, meaning that he knows everything, he must know that the act is finite within the natural realm. He must know that the ramifications here in the natural world are finite. So he must know that when they become infinite to him, that is completely his responsibility and his fault--he did, after all, create all of the perameters of existence and is responsible for making the finite act into a finite crime.

In short, they become infinite because of God and will his full knowledge that they were finite before he makes them infinite. It's much like something that you (generic reader) may do that seems insignificant to you, but because it is a pet-peeve of mine I project it into a larger crime than it is. That's my fault, not yours. Similarly, it's God's fault sin is infinite, not ours.  This God of yours, Kevin, is much to anthropocentric.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I know there are a lot of

I know there are a lot of arguements against believing in God. I've been there, and asked those questions. I can never truly explain how I "know" that God exists. I just know that I have reason to believe based on person experiences, whereas most atheists dis-believe on authority.....which seems to be something you criticize christians for. If you all are really as "open-minded" as you claim to be, then be open-minded about this God. Seriously consider both sides of the coin. Look at arguements supporting Christianity. If you are still unconvinced then that's fine. I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of hostile remarks for this, which is okay, because I'm sure it sounds just like what every other Christian trys to say to you.

 


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote:

KevenJ wrote:
If God is the most valuable, all-satisfying, infinitely worthy being, then offending Him (i.e. sinning) is deserving of infinite punishment. This idea might be hard to comprehend, especially the "infinity" part, because most likely you're going to compare offending God to offending another human being.

a simple challenge to this is the fact that none of us, neither you or me, asked to be born. i suppose if in a proposed theological framework i asked a God to be born, then i might owe this God something. but I didn't. offending this god is not deserving of infinite punishment since his creation didn't ask to be created.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: a simple

mouse wrote:
a simple challenge to this is the fact that none of us, neither you or me, asked to be born.

Not only that, but we weren't allowed to pick and choose what we would be. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: ... I just

KevenJ wrote:

... I just know that I have reason to believe based on person experiences, whereas most atheists dis-believe on authority.....which seems to be something you criticize christians for. If you all are really as "open-minded" as you claim to be, then be open-minded about this God.

I don't dis-believe on authority.  What authority are you even referring to? I've been open-minded about it, and I'm not convinced.  Your personal experience cannot be evidence for me, by definition.  I would also question your understanding of epistemology, considering what you claim to know.  That's a different issue. 

Quote:
Seriously consider both sides of the coin. Look at arguements supporting Christianity. If you are still unconvinced then that's fine. I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of hostile remarks for this, which is okay, because I'm sure it sounds just like what every other Christian trys to say to you.

I have no hostile comments.  I'll simply say that I have looked at both sides and find Christianity not only not convincing, but not even remotely convincning.  I would kindly ask you to not assume that atheists have not looked at both sides.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.