What if God was one of us.

Post Reply New Topic

But did the authors of the New Testament gospels really witness the events they wrote about, or did they just write about what they heard from other people? Why were the gospels written in third person instead of first person? It only makes sense that it would be in third person if they were not even eyewitnesses at all. Were the gospels even historically accurate? So far, I don't know of any evidence to support the idea that the gospels are 100% accurate. It is also relevant to know who or what Jesus really was. How can you trust in what people claimed Jesus was, without knowing what Jesus was? Without being 100% certain that Jesus is a god in human-form and without being 100% certain that the god of the Bible is the only real god then why believe it?

There is also a slight possibility that the god of the Bible is actually Satan, or a demon that pretends to be a god, but how can anyone know if this is true or false? If demons or Satan are extremely powerful, then how can one be certain that one of these has not been deceiving humans for thousands of years?



If this is true, we would still have the choice to worship or not worship. Sure we wouldn't be able to escape being victimized if the only real god is a sadistic narcissist, but we wouldn't have to worship. The only reason I mentioned this possibility is because you believe with absolute certainty that the god you believe in is a perfect and good god, without having absolute knowledge of what good and evil is, so you would not know if this being that could be posing as a god really has presented humans with a definition of what absolute morality is.

There is a possibility that the god you believe in is Satan, posing as a god and Jesus could have been his puppet, and what the Bible says is right and wrong could be twisted or corrupted. Some of what is said to be evil might actually be evil, while some might not be evil, for instance, things that may be harmless, such as homosexual relationships among consenting adults, that cause absolutely no harm(unless of course you consider your god's wrath as harm. "He don't like it, so he's going to torture you forever after you die if you practice this sin"). Some of what is allowed in the Bible might have actually been evil and should have been forbidden and considered a sin, such as owning other people as property, but was allowed instead.



I thought I answered the question, but probably not in the way you wanted me to. I think the question was whether or not I would be angry if people were using my temples for secular purposes and preventing people with spiritual needs from coming to me(assuming I was God). My answer was that there would be no need for temples. If people needed me, I would just go to them and they could see me, talk to me, and receive feedback from me. I also wouldn't need for there to be places for people to worship me, assuming I was God, because I would not have a need to be worshiped.

I agree with your point about the temples. I did not think about the open-air altars at the moment I first replied. I was just thinking about the question you asked me. Although, it still does not make any sense why altars would be necessary. It would certainly have been easier if humans said, "God, I need your help and your guidance, I pray that you help me." and then he just went to them so they could be 100% certain that their guidance was coming from him. If I were God{I realize that I am not and never will be) that is how it would work. That way they could be completely sure that the guidance they needed was coming from me.

Also, there is a major reason why I actually do think the god you believe in seems like a narcissist. Yes, he certainly does have a need to be worshiped, because when people decide not to worship him, bad things happen to them. If they worship something else other than him, the same thing happens. If a non-narcissistic god had created the universe and the Earth, this god would not resort to threats of violence and death and it would actually give its creations a legitimate reason to desire to worship, by trying to show its love to them. A narcissistic god would give its creations a reason to desire to worship only for the purpose of having its creations worship it and when they do not, it would become enraged and have them killed, or kill them itself. Maybe it would do worse than just kill. It might resort to eternal torture as punishment.

Also, if polytheism was such a problem, then why didn't this god just come down to the polytheistic people and say, "Hey, your gods don't exist and I am the only real god there is and if you continue to worship them, then it means you are idiots, for worshiping nonexistent things." Certainly that would have solved lots of problems. When the religious leaders tried to corrupt this god's instructions for the people, it could certainly have come down from the sky and say, "Hey, religious leaders, you're not doing what you should be doing. You are being sinners and hypocrites." Instead, only a human-form version of this god said this, but these religious leaders had absolutely now way of being 100% certain who this guy was. He could have been who he claimed to be, could have been a sorcerer, or his power could have come from an unknown source.



Well, if he did it a long time ago, why doesn't he still do it today? Surely there are still people that believe in the god of the Bible and still want this god's help, but yet, he does not come down from the sky and talk to them. This would lead any rational person to the conclusion that maybe, the stories of this happening in the Old Testament were really myth.



There is still one problem. Sure, if he had infinite knowledge of all possibilities that could happen, he still did know that what did happen, would happen, right? He apparently knows the entire future, so he knows the possible outcomes for every situation, but also knows the outcomes that will happen, right? He probably did know all of the possible decisions humans could have made or not made, but still did already know which decisions the humans would make, so in a way, did still know that humans would sin, did still know every sin every human would do, and did still know who would be punished as a result.



"Narcissist God" would still work. Narcissism would mean that he would need to be worshiped, praised, and honored. Yes, a narcissistic god would care if it got our attention or not, because it would need to be worshiped and would use threats to force people to worship and serve out of fear. Now, I would say that the reason why he might not kill every human that disobeys as soon as they do it, and send them to Hell, could be that maybe, because of his sadistic side, which I also think he has, he might also want the disobedient people who have already rejected him to think that they are safe from his wrath, when they are not. Then, when they die, might say, "Guess what? You were wrong and now you're going to Hell to be tortured forever!"



So basically, what you're saying is, humans were created in the image of Yahweh? If that is so, then why create the animals? Was it so the humans could have something to have control over? I do realize that according to the Bible, animals do not have free will, but why is that? If all of his other creations were given free will(assuming their actions and lives are not completely predetermined), then why not the animals? It seems he must not have cared much for the animals because he created them without a soul, just so they would be controlled by superior beings. This might also mean that the animals were needed "just in case humans sinned" so that the humans would have something innocent to sacrifice for being guilty of sin.

Besides, why not just do the whole Jesus thing from the beginning? There would never have been a need for animal sacrifice, unless he waited a long time, on purpose, so the animals would need to be sacrificed for the sins of humans. This seems to be a possible reason for his plans, if he exists and is the only real god. I admit that I do not have infinite knowledge, so it might not have been his reason, if the Bible is 100% accurate, but it seems like a possibility.



I probably wouldn't. If I were to sin, because I enjoyed sinning and doing what is evil, why would I want to be punished for my sins? A corrupted sinner that liked doing sin would try to escape punishment, whether or not they were able to do so. I do think that it would actually be a good method of justice. "If you do the crime, you do the time." always works the best. It really makes no sense to have other living things that do not have a free will of their own to be sacrificed to atone for the sins of the guilty. The guilty should always be punished for their crimes, not something else.



Well an all-knowing god could certainly have invented a system that would allow "eye-for-an-eye" as punishment while still preventing extinction. Certainly when a person had a limb amputated as a punishment for their sin, they could be given the option to have that missing limb regenerated, if and only if they were truly sorry for the evil they had done, not just sorry that they got caught, and if they were willing to pay back the debt they owe, through whatever means necessary. Then, once they met these basic requirements, the amputated limb would be regenerated and then the person could work off the debt they owe. Simple solution.

Also, I do know there would be a risk of infection in the ancient world, but if my idea for the solution were implemented, then there wouldn't have been any bacteria or viruses. A system could have been used that would implement my idea without bacteria or viruses even needing to exist for any purpose. There would be no need for good bacteria and bad bacteria would not exist, because the all-powerful and all-knowing god could have made this possible.

I do realize the amputation causes pain, but, the specific amputation should depend on the crime. For instance, if a person chops off another person's hand out of malice, theirs should be chopped off as well, and then the innocent person who got attacked could have their missing hand regenerated by God. The criminal would not have their limb regenerated and would be forced to suffer for the crime they committed, until he or she actually was sorry for what they did, because he or she knew it was wrong and was willing to work for the person they attacked. Then their missing hand could be regenerated and they could go on and work for the person they assaulted. This way, a person does not need to have a limb amputated for every crime. Maybe separate punishments could be assigned to different crimes that do not harm a person physically, maybe crimes that could be dealt upon someone by God himself. An example could be, if you damage someone emotionally, then the god in power could come to you and then damage you emotionally, so you feel the pain of the person you hurt.

The simple fact is, if God is actually Yahweh of the Bible, then he probably thought of these possible ideas. He probably thought of this type of system, since he would know of every possibility. The simple fact that he did not choose something that worked better, means he did plan on having innocent, living things being killed to atone for the sins of the guilty.




Ok, so maybe I had the wrong idea about the priests eating the meat of the sacrifices.



So the animal sacrifice was only atonement for sins against Yahweh, not sins against another person? One thing I do wonder about though is why homosexuality demanded death as a punishment. What if there was consent between the two? Why would it be considered a sin since it does not cause harm when there is consent between the two people? If it is a consenting relationship, then why does it need a punishment? Is it a sin against Yahweh or other people, even if there is consent and no harm is done? There is evidence that homosexual people did not choose their sexual orientation, so why should they be commanded to avoid acting on the desires they have as a result of their sexual orientation? It would certainly have been much easier to just not allow homosexuality to exist at all, if Yahweh didn't like it so much. It might have also worked well to regulate what types of homosexual relationships were allowed, considering the fact that people with this sexual orientation do not choose it. Even if acting on those desires is a sin, why would it require death as a punishment? It makes no sense.



All that it means when some of Canaanites fled, is that they didn't want the Isrealites that were coming to slaughter them and that the ones that stayed there probably didn't care that they were coming. Did the Canaanites start out worshiping Yahweh, or is it actually possible that they never did? If they never did, then the ones that were killed probably knew they were being killed because of the views of people following a different religion, but they probably did not know it was because the gods they believed in were false. What about the children who grew up into that religion and those religious practices, the ones that could not have known that their gods were false? It would have been much better if Yahweh had gone to them and told them, "You are being deceived into believing in false gods and if you turn away from them and turn to me, then you will be better off." Then once they knew this was the case, they would not have needed to be killed or have to run. They would just turn away from their gods and begin worshiping Yahweh, unless he threatened to do something terrible to them if they did not worship him and they were too afraid of him to love him, then they might not do that.



But being omniscient, he already knew who would never obey him and who would obey him, so in a way, basically planned out who would die and who would not. In pre-Isrealite Canaan, did Yahweh ever go to those people, himself, and tell them that their gods were false? If that didn't happen, then basically the people who died would have been killed without warning. If it was just people that had warned them, they would not have been taken seriously, but if Yahweh had told them himself, a real god would have been taken seriously.



Yet, knowing the future and knowing what would happen in the future, as well as what might happen in the future, he still knew who would disobey him, when they would disobey him, when he would need to send Jesus, knew that some still would not believe in or accept Jesus, knows when Jesus will return, and knows who will not repent before that happens. Basically, it would seem as though he did plan this all out and did plan who would go to Hell and who would not.



I suppose the symbolism sounds good, but a lot of what does happen in the Bible and the information provided about the god that is in it, all of his qualities and abilities, do not sound good. Maybe to you they might make him sound good, because you absolutely do not want to consider the possibility that the god you believe in could be imperfect, evil, and/or cruel, because the idea of believing in such a god might be uncomfortable to you.




But Yahweh does have human attributes. The Bible attributes human attributes to him. It does show how angry he gets. It shows how much he hates people that do not love him and how much he needs to be worshiped. I didn't attribute anything to Yahweh. What I did was read about his qualities and made a judgment based on what I know. I'm not perfect and I know it. However, I do have knowledge of what is good and what is not and when I know that Yahweh does things in the Bible that I know are not good, then what else am I supposed to think? Am I supposed to just have faith and convince myself that he is good, even though he does not seem good?

If my definition of "good" is flawed and Yahweh's definition of "good" is perfect, then he really doesn't follow its standards. In different areas of the Bible, it tells humans how to be good people, but then Yahweh goes ahead and does things that would have been considered evil if humans did them. When he kills a bunch of his creations for not worshiping and serving him, the only justification for those actions is this, "They are his creations and he has the right to make whatever rules he wants and he is not required to follow his own rules, because those rules are for humans." Just having the authority and the right to do whatever he wants and making himself above his own rules, does not make his actions good or right, does it? That just makes him powerful.

If a human father were to kill some of his kids or burn them to death in a furnace because they loved some other kids' parents more than him, wouldn't that human father be considered a sinner for this, according to the Bible? Yes, he would. Yahweh does these very same things, so how is he any better? What if they loved the things he gave them more than him, especially after discovering how abusive and cruel he really is and then he killed them for loving those things more than him? If a human father did this to his children, he would be a sinner, but if Yahweh did this to humans, it would be considered justice, because he is supposed to be "perfect". But how can he be perfect if he commits acts that would be sinful if humans did them?

Besides, how can you know that the standard of "good" presented in the Bible is really the ultimate standard of good? What if it's not? What if Yahweh isn't the only real god and what if he is not a god at all? How can we know for sure? If I were to judge Yahweh's actions, based on his own definition of "good" then I would say he is just as imperfect as most humans. He would be no better than any of his creations, maybe even more evil than most of them. Of course, if he exists, then he defines himself as perfect, just, and good, so this would also mean that if his definitions of those words are perfect and the human definitions of those words are flawed, then that would mean that the most evil dictators in the history of the Earth would have been perfect, just, and good, if they had been gods instead of humans.



I think he was supposed to mean that your dad and other people would look like God. Of course, if it's the god of the Bible, then only men look like him and women do not, because women weren't created in his image. They were just created to serve the men and look a little bit different. Of course, being male or female would be materialistic attributes that a powerful being without a physical body could not have. So it might have the persona of a man(one that thinks women are inferior), so in that case, men would be created in God's persona, not image.

I laughed so hard at that, tea came out my nose!

And you just know that this can be layered over with campy inflection, making God one of us. (And hey, John was the one that Jesus loved best, so maybe the apple didn't fall so far from the tree...)

The belief in a humanoid God is very much the hallmark of paganism. I thought the whole Judeo-Christian idea of God is that he is not human and can take ANY shape or form he chooses!

As a practicing Semitist and philologer, I feel the best available [data are LIMited] reconstructed vocalization is approximately "yahoo" [compare eg Bibi] which is a fun exclamation and ties in intriguingly with Dean Swift's oeuvre.

Hed probably be an aspie.

I think the differences between paganism and Christianity is that paganism holds the general view that everything is God, where Christianity doesn't see everything as divine. I think its its ties to neo-Platonism and the idea that God is found strictly in ideals and not the material world that's the root of this thinking. Paganism (in the common understanding of the term) sees dualism as part of the divine plan, and Christianity sees negatives (pain, suffering, lies, illusion) as a kind of mistake that's in the process of restoration. If there was a tendency for the pagan religions to personify God, it was because they saw divinity in the negative traits, as well as positive. If your whole view of God is perfection, you're obviously not going to find it in human beings. If you see chaos and destruction as well as order and peace as part of a divine whole, then you'll definitely see it reflected in humans.

Luke12:24
Consider the ravens:
they neither sow nor reap:which neither have storehouse or barn;and God feedeth them:...

I feed the crows everyday,so then at least to them I am God.

Dues Pascit Corvos.

Consider the Bal Chuva and you'll understand why people have to sin. A Bal Chuva is a Jewish person who lived in sin but returns to the ways. (Although he isn't perfect, he's forsaken evil.)

For it is said

Where the Bal Chuva stands, the perfectly righteous cannot approach.

Why?

Think about something you really love. Let's say pork.

Now let's eating pork is a sin.

The perfectly righteous man never tastes pork. Therefore he never knows how good it tastes, and thus he doesn't know what he's missing.

The Bal Chuva, before he returns, is in a bacon of the month club. Then he decides to return and give it up.

He knows how good it is, yet chooses to reject it out of love for God and a desire to follow his commandments.

If god was one of us we would pray to this other guy who would be liable for our existence then... Steve.
Anyway, god would have been dead for thousands of years already in this case so nobody would even know him.

To be true, I never understood this quotation, "what if god was one of us". Where exactly is the sense of this question?
Probably if somebody is religious this question just touches him or her and that's the magic behind it...

he would be in jail for raping a young virgin in her sleep, making her pregnant and run of… one can only wonder why sex is a sin according to religion… this prick could not keep his dick for himself before marriage.

he also would face trials for genocide and other crimes to humanity… but he dictates that "thou shall not kill"… while he himself has killed the worlds population many times over.

the list goes on and on. it is ridiculous!

YiHaWeHo!

Bless you.

Anyways, could it be.....Cthulhu?

I think a much more entertaining question would be: What if God was a lobster?

how could god be one of us? god cannot fit inside the universe let alone into just one person in it.
maybe some people can be direct conduits to god, but god is beyond reality because if the universe is gods creation, then god is all around it and all through it, but the universe is not big enough to contain god (even if the universe is infinite in all directions and manifestations).
i believe in god because i have arrived at "divisions by zero" errors in my speculation of how everything came to be, and i can only think that there must have been one true miracle that caused eternity to spring from nothing originally. to summon infinity from zero is surely a miracle.


i am not a philosopher so that is all i have to say.

All hail the Great Lobster! He boiled for our sins!



So Jesus was a fake?

There is no reason to think God could not fit inside his own creation. Consider the oyster, or the clam. It knits itself a shell in which to live. Birds make nests that hold many birds. Humans build skyscrapers. We are not limited to making things smaller than us - why would an omnipotent being be?



Or a mathematician.

At least god would have to be of a higher dimension to be physically able to be connected to each given particle in the 3 dimensional universe. Considered the three big religious books, the tora such as the two serial novels of the tora, the bible and the Quran, god is not independent from time, so it is not the fourth dimension but one of the elementary particles' dimensions...

smart ass bastard - over!