Which God? There are so many to choose from.
Perfection is a malleable thing. To Christians humans are made in gods image, including emotions. In the minds of people they only think of the emotions that are reflected by god as the positive ones; like caring, empathy, love, ect. But if you take into account that god made everything it is reasonable to say that god gave us the negative emotions as well, since Satan (gods creation) harbored these feelings when it made Adam and eve sin in the garden of eden. Even if god only has positive emotion it does have emotion.
It’s all made up buddy
You can make the characters do whatever you want when you’re writing fiction.
I’m assuming you’re looking for a basic answer from Christianity. In that case, the TL;DR is that Humans are created in God’s image. We’re endowed with God’s emotions, not the other way around, and emotions aren’t necessarily bad, they’re just corrupted in us by sin.
God experiences all kinds of emotions in the Bible, he is “jealous” for us, he’s also depicted as sad or angry in many cases. Even Jesus, a “perfect man without sin” feels anger and flips the tables of a synagogue when he sees people turning that religious practice into a corrupt business.
So a religious answer to “shouldn’t God be beyond human emotions?” would be that emotions aren’t inherently bad. We should be angered by injustice, for example. Emotions can be bad, if you let them control you and fly into a rage for selfish reasons, for example, but they don’t have to be bad.
I think killing everyone on the planet would be considered bad or ungodly. Have you seen what God did to Job? God is pretty fucked up.
Politely, no one asked? OP asked a direct question, I’m doing my best to answer it, and you’re… dunking on me about a point nobody was talking about?
At best, this is an odd non-sequitur. At worst, it’s toxic behaviour meant to shut down any discussion about a topic you personally dislike.
They didn’t have science back then so they were even stupider than today.
The best answer. It really is that simple LOL.
Because humans create their gods in their own image. Not the other way around. Your god becomes a reflection of what you already tend to believe because it exists solely as a justification for believing it.
If you’re part of a society that believes that all outsiders are bad. You’re going to invent your god that proclaims outsiders to be bad. If you’re part of a group that has no sense of monogamy, you’re going to create a god that proclaims “polygamy is good”!
Gods are the invented paragons of whatever society created them.
With literally hundreds of Gods I think you’re right.
Man saw his ego and named it God.
In the Bible he is beyond human emotions. Even though he is portrayed as having human emotions in many instances such as in the garden of Eden or Job.
It’s a contradiction of course as the Bible is caulk full of them.
Remember the Bible was written by humans who cannot fathom the mind of such a character as God. At least in the Bible. So they imbue him with the emotions they feel themselves not knowing any better and hoping the illiterate masses will simply believe the scripture wholesale. Which they did and do.
God literally says that he is a jealous god in The Bible. Hardly beyond emotion!
Most importantly is to ask why is he subject to time? Our only concept of existing or being alive is tied to time: thought is a change of state, and change is defined by a progression of time. But if God is everything, why is he subject to time? What’s “outside” time?
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.
Do you have any links to recommend to check out for further reading/watching? Or what search terms should help me find this the best? Ty :u
I’ve got one that would likely be relevant: The Early History of God – Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel
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.
You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments
Do you legitimately think that the same people who get into organized religion, that buy into thought systems that tell them how things are supposed to be and how they should feel about stuff, as a general rule have read their own source material that meticulously?
Yes. Some do. I was raised by a fundamentalist; they read the Bible constantly. Like, book clubs, a couple, three times a week, reading and discussing different parts of the Bible.
By the time I left that home (went to live with mom at 14), I’d read the thing myself four times all the way through, and various sections of it far more often. When dad visits, I hear audio book versions of it playing in the night as they’re getting ready for bed. Self-indoctrination.
IME, they’re not all that unusual in their church.
That’s why I said “as a general rule”. I’m not sure I would consider fundamentalists to be representative of your average Christian - their whole thing is Biblical literalism, after all… I was raised Catholic, in an era where we still had religious courses in school, and I can pretty safely say that pretty much nobody read it outside the bare minimum they had to for First Communion/Confirmation/wedding prep.
The running joke in between me and my wife (who was raised Catholic) is that I rail against papists and she laments the rise of the heretics. The last time either of us set foot in a church was a couple of years ago showing visitors the local cathedral.
When I was growing up, in the mid 20th century, I don’t remember “fundamentalists” being a thing. Bible study was pretty common in every church we attended; we moved around a lot between my 8th and 18th birthdays. It was just bog standard Protestant Christianity. But we did attend church a fair amount. For the few years after the divorce, dad had us in church twice on Sunday and once on Wednesday evenings. And I know we switched cities and churches three times in that period.
I think there are people who wear their religion as a justification for lamentable personal opinions but who know little about what it’s really about. Then there are people like my father who’ve made religion their personality and are deeply read, and who still somehow have focused on the most horrible take-aways. And then there are folks who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, and this is probably the majority.
You don’t have to read it meticulously to see the contrast he’s taking about.
But few actually read it at all. They say they do, but their reading consists of looking up verse numbers they saw on bumper stickers, leafing through the first pages of Genesis, and occasionally reading a random page only to say to themselves, so silently that they are not actually conscious of it: “hm well I don’t know what all that old timey language means but I’m going to go see what’s in the fridge now.”
Oh, that’s for sure. The thing is, you need to be open to the idea that there could be contradictions to realize they are there. If you approach your readings already believing that you are a mere sinner who, in the end, can’t really understand God’s Plan™, it gets easier to brush off the inconsistencies.
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.
“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.
One hell of an album.
I don’t believe you
You got the whole damn thing all wrong
He’s not the kind you have to wind up
On Sundays“God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs”
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 explanations 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 explanations I suspect you are likliest to find.
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.
Ehh, I’m gonna push back and say that, as a lifelong atheist, I have greatly enjoyed reading books on Jesus and the early church. But I’m also a history nerd, so I enjoy stuff from other times already.
Religion is still dumb and makes people hate each other but the books are entertaining regardless.
Sure. There is value in studying religion in the context of history, sociology or philosophy. But to me that is distinct from theology.
Trying to understand fictional media is a waste of time because it’s all made up.
Trying to understand linguistics is a waste of time because it’s all made up.
Trying to understand the economy is a waste of time because it’s all made up.
Hey wait this sounds like anti-intellectualism disguised as anti-theism
I made no such claim so I’m not going to bother trying to argue against your stupid strawman.
What is it about theology that makes it worth less to analyze than something like fiction, or linguistics?
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.
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.
JFC, thank you. I was going insane with the replies in this thread and you seem to be the only one who actually has any understanding of religion. You’re my favorite agnostic person ever.
Its just a conversation bro, you can chill out
