• Apepollo11@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • EleventhHour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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. Also, believing that your car simply doesn’t like cold and damp weather is a rather harmless belief. For a person to believe that a god’s will reflects their personal wishes and desires is inherently dangerous. I’m not aware of anyone rationalizing hate crimes because they thought the car didn’t like a certain group of people.

      • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

          • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

              • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                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.

                • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • Seleni@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Glide@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?

        • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sure. There is value in studying religion in the context of history, sociology or philosophy. But to me that is distinct from theology.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Glide@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

  • Balthazar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      How the hell do they explain his “love” then? Seems like they create more problems than they fix with this crap.

      • Balthazar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        “Love” in the scriptures is typically a verb, e.g., “God so loved the world…” It describes an action that God does, not a feeling. God’s love is his acting in a loving way towards undeserving people.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    You can make the characters do whatever you want when you’re writing fiction.

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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’

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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…

      That’s not entirely true. You’re describing what is effectively Calvinism (also, Hinduism/Buddhism) wherein you are born into a particular state of grace (or absence of it) and you just have to play the hand you’re dealt because its “part of the plan”. If you are aware of God, that’s a kind of blessing in its own right. But its like being aware of a political head of state or a famous historical figure. Knowing they exist can give you insight into how to live your life, but they don’t fundamentally know or care that you exist and you don’t impact their grandeur in any meaningful way.

      There’s little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all.

      There’s a huge difference, in the same way there’s a difference between a Law of Physics and No Law.

      Understanding physics allows me to live relatively safely compared to someone who is totally unfamiliar with how conductivity or gravity or momentum works. Understanding spirituality will (presumably) serve the same effect. Spiritual enlightenment affords you a way of avoiding certain hazards, like not holding a big metal rod above you in a storm or leaping into the ocean without a buoy. Ritual and prayer becomes like a car’s safety belt and air bags, cushioning you from the psychic trauma of daily life and protecting you from malicious spiritual entities.

      There’s also a host of spiritual intermediaries in the more esoteric faiths. Catholicism has its saints and angels, while Islam and Judaism has the prophets. Animist religions have spirits of the land and the animals. Pagan faiths have their pantheons and demigods. And they’ve all got their terrestrial spiritual adversaries - demons, heretics, the acolytes of rival deities, etc.

      Why am I praying to ward off evil spirits if there are none? Why am I wearing these vestments and holy symbols to insulate me against “evil” radiation or bad juju? Why am I going on these crusades if I don’t think capturing the Holy Land has any benefit for my nation or clan?

      You don’t have to believe in a “Personal Jesus” to believe in the consequences of a God or a Godly World. Sometimes its just Metaphysical Capture the Flag.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.