God has emotions because it is created in man’s image. It’s pure projection sold through propaganda to keep the weak, scared, and stupid under the thumb of the kind of men who wish to rule.
Less cynically, I believe the argument in scripture is the inverse. Man was created in god’s image therefore we probably inherited a lot of properties of the devine.
It’s a perfect cover to call people cynics for simply revealing the poor situation we find ourselves in. The denial will never end. This was one of the best sentences I’ve read in a while. Very succinct, thanks.
Starts with:
“Not to get into a debate.”Continues with:
" If God is so omnipotent"…🤪
Well, that’s what a rhetorical question is. You’re making a statement, not a query, but the best way to couch your statement happens to be with a question mark at the end of it. I’m not sure this is the best example of one, but at least they made an attempt to label it as such.
Because it’s nonsense created by humans. Humans came up with these stories, of course they anthropomorphized their deity.
As much as I agree with the premise, I think you kid yourself when you don’t look at the power structure. While in the earliest of times you could definitely blame the entire race, I’d rather concentrate on the current situation.
There is no god.
not what was asked
But it is a possible solution to the postulated contradiction and thereby a valid answer.
So first, asking religious questions on the Fediverse is a fool’s errand, but that aside: Why not? Hell, if anything it’d be the other way around: An all-powerful being without emotion wouldn’t create anything, because they wouldn’t gain anything from doing so. Any creation by an omnipotent being would have to be an emotional affair.
Maybe it was boredom. I mean, when effortlessly power everything sometimes you just need a break.
Boredom is an emotion. As is hunger.
asking religious questions on the Fediverse is a fool’s errand
Why? Because believers don’t like the answers?
Because nobody actually answers the question. “Because it’s bullshit” is the least interesting, least informative answer you can give to a question like this, and it does nothing except make the commenter feel clever. It gets especially annoying when legitimate answers are buried under dozens of “because God doesn’t exist I’m so smart.” Now an answer could reject the premise that a creator exists and still be interesting, but it’d have to do better than the armchair anthropology everyone here seems so fond of.
Discussing about a being whose existence cannot be verified in reality is an exercise in futility.
I hope you have the same opinion regarding philosophy, pure math and string theory, but also: Then don’t fucking answer the question. Clearly some people, including the OP, see value in discussing beings whose existence cannot be verified in reality.
I hope you have the same opinion regarding philosophy,
I don’t care a iota about philosophy, in fact.
pure math
Pure math is a self-contained system that only occasionally is useful in reality
and string theory
String theory has no full international scientific consensus, so for now is just a possible model of reality. Does it bother you?
Then don’t fucking answer the question.
You seem to think I recognize your authority to give me orders. I don’t.
Clearly some people, including the OP, see value in discussing beings whose existence cannot be verified in reality.
As long as they postulate it as fiction, I don’t have an issue with that. The moment they posit they ideas are real, they’re exposed to scrutiny to those among us who care about what’s real and what’s not.
As a final note, your tantrum is somewhat amusing, but in a different sense is somewhat sad. Make of that what you want.
… Wow. I’m going to hope for the sake of everyone you’ll ever meet that you’re just 14 or something.
I hope you don’t procreate until you get rid of your religious delusion.
You seem to think I recognize your authority to give me orders. I don’t.
No, he’s giving you free advice on how not to be an insufferable dickhead in public; advice that you seem to desperately need, and this is coming from an atheist, before you think I am playing team sports.
It’s a very simple concept: if all you’re contributing to a conversation is the equivalent of coming into the room and violently jerking yourself off while going “hurrrr look how big my dick is” you’re being actively detrimental to the conversation no matter if you’re right or wrong.
You can engage with the conversation while disagreeing with the premise, that is not what you’re doing. You are just being a smug teenage dickhead who needs to butt into every conversation to, if nothing else, reinforce the idea that there should be harsher barriers to being on the internet in the mind of everyone looking at your “contributions.”
All written accounts of God are produced by humans for an audience of other humans.
In the same way that we might describe a storm cloud as “angry” or a sunny day as “cheerful”, one might apply emotional descriptors to an omnipotent divine force in order to personify an impersonal and abstract entity.
Past that, assuming you believe that a divine being is above humanity, why wouldn’t they have emotions? Emotions are a feature of sentience and God is supposed to be a super-sentient creature. If anything, it would experience these emotions more intensely and intricately than its creations. The human rage of a shout or the despair of a cry becomes the earth-splitting eruption of a volcano or the suffocating deluge of a flood.
At the same time, it is the overwhelming longing for companionship that drives a God to form life from the void of space. The intense joy in the creative act leads this fundamental superhuman force to tirelessly build an entire universe. The deep and profound pride and love which brings them among their creations clothed in their own form, willing to endure the humiliation of this avatar form in order to enlighten and elevate their divine progeny to their own level.
Absent these primal emotional urges, why would a God choose to be a God at all, and not simply languish within the darkness for eternity, content to the echoing silence of dead space?
I’m not religious. But I’m pretty sure they would say that we are created in his image.
So, if we have emotions. I don’t think it’s beyond reason that god might have them as well.
And holy shit these comments are insufferable. This isnt about your personal vendetta against religion, just answer the god damn question.
As St George the Carlin asked, if God is all powerful, why does he need money?
Because the shit that makes you feel all powerful doesn’t come cheap!
“If God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so heavy even he can’t lift it?”
The Class Clown album was the beginning of the end of my Catholicism
G-d doesn’t. G-d’s creatures do. This is a means of distribution.
Or maybe it’s the other way round: We have emotions because God has emotions (not to get into a debate)
You posit an unproven and unprovable character as fact and then retreat? Not very fair on your part.
So how do you want to define ‘fact’?
Something verifiable which comports with reality.
Present evidence of your god in a way that satisfies the conditions in https://tiny.cc/SD_proof and I will probably believe it.
So this has no relation to what I have written before.
So you now have permission to leave.No arguments like all believers. Go cry to church, then.
Any omnipotent being must be capable of feeling emotions, otherwise that would be a thing they can’t do, making them not omnipotent.
Having power over somebody does not exclude you from having emotions. Superman is nearly invincible and a great guy who always does the right thing; but his feelings can still get hurt if people are mean to him, and he still gets angry when people are cruel to each other, such as a human murdering another human. God would be above a superhero, but the same principle applies.
If you are God, the point of creating humanity is because you’re alone, and want to love and be loved. If you spent a lot of time and effort to raise your kids and they grew up to hate you for no discernible reason and did terrible things just to act the opposite of how you raised them to be, you’d be pissed too. Do I have “power” over my kids? I guess. I’m bigger than them and even if they’re adults, you can always pull out a .22 and shoot them if they don’t obey. But that doesn’t solve anything and it’s not very loving is it? I want to raise my kids to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, but also because it benefits us all to act that way reliably, and makes us all happier.
If everyone obeys God just because they have to fall in line or die/be directly punished every time, that defeats the point of making humanity because they won’t love you. Yet maybe it would be necessary to step in if they’re harmful enough to the rest of humanity, hence the smiting. But most religions have an idea that God is trying to move us past the point where he has to step in, or has already stepped back permanently. Maybe God punishes evil after death to facilitate us getting our act together. Or perhaps he simply rewards the good and doesn’t reward the evil. Maybe he experimented a little in the past as to what actually works. Maybe he knew he was justified to punish evil, but didn’t realize the toll it would take on him by hurting your own children until it happened, and that’s why he doesn’t do it anymore.
Don’t @ me in the comments criticizing some specific version of God you have in your head. There’s a million different religions that say a million different things. This is theoretical, answering OP’s question.
The main idea is that books like Bible and Quran were sent to humanity so they are made for humans of the time.
The “anger” isn’t supposed to be a literal anger, just how humans identify what happened.
For example most verses about wrath follow with curse or punishment etc, so maybe “wrath” is just what humans call it when God curses or punishes people; and it’s not a literal feeling of anger.
There was a similar debate with how some verses say God heard/saw “humans were doing [insert thing]…” etc in the books.
Less relevant info.
Also in the case of Islam for example, different branches and even sects have different popular interpretations.
I know one Sufi theologist saying “All creatures were made to reflect God’s light” so they might call it “What our own emotions were modeled after, and are distorted versions of?”
Then there is Ahl al-Ra’y (Mainly followers of Maturidism today) who see Hadith as “uncredible” so they usually have slightly different views on most stuff. But I am not religious enough to learn theology that far.
I know one Sufi theologist saying “All creatures were made to reflect God’s light” so they might call it “What our own emotions were modeled after, and are distorted versions of?”
This is (unsurprisingly, since Islam is an Abramic faith, also further descended from ancient Sumerian religion) very similar to “the shattering of the vessels” in certain sects of Judaism. And incidentally, I agree with it.
Which of the 3000 gods are you referring to?
Or vanity. “I’m gonna need y’all to show up once a week to tell me how awesome I am”
Humans really want to have a reason for things. Any reason, even one that’s wrong, is better than no reason. Some things have reasons that are only discoverable after centuries of investigation, but we demands reasons now.
