Which God? There are so many to choose from.
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.
You can make the characters do whatever you want when you’re writing fiction.
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
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.
Buddhism as it originally was, was more of a philosophy and way of life.
However, as will all organized religion, Buddhism has morphed in Tibet (free Tibet), India, and other places into mysticism with gods, recurring semi-saviors through “reincarnation”, and classist systems and hierarchies. Sad, really. Humans mess everything up for personal gain and control.
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”
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.
Yeah, all gods have been made by man.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
This still sounds like violent conversion therapy. What an aweful, merciless god you make of yourself.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
