If There Was God But No Bible

[David Sklansky]

Suppose the bible did not exist but people nevertheless had good reason to believe in a God that had an interest in humans and might provide an afterlife. Who knows why? Maybe because many people who were resucitated after their heart stopped woke up speaking all the languages of the world fluently. Or something like that.

Anyway with only this to go on, philosophers would now get busy speculating about the details of this God, what he wants from us, and what he will do for us. Under these circumstances, I contend that no philosopher in his right mind would come to the conclusion that God's main concern is whether we think he exists. Or, even more insanely that he will basically give infinite rewards to those who do believe and infinite punishment to those who don't.

With little to go on, I think virtually everybody would suspect that God's main concern would be how each of his creations treat each other. And if he did dole out rewards and punishments it would be based mainly on that. Just perhaps he might also like a little recognition for his "brilliance". Creating the universe and all that. But it would seem reasonable that he would value more recognition from those who went to the trouble of appreciating some of the specifics (by for instance learning about the intricacies of DNA) than he would from slavish sycophants who say he's wonderful but don't have a clue why. Just like human experts more greatly appreciate knowledgeable fans.

Under this no bible scenario, the only people who would even entertain the idea that God's main concern is belief in him, would be those people who desperately needed it to be so. In other words people who can't cut it. They can't stop themselves from doing bad. Or not studying science. Or they have loved ones who can't cut it.

But so what. Just because us humans would expect God, if he exists, to be a certain way, doesn't mean he has to be that way. It might be our best guess for him if we had no bible to spell out his qualities. But we do. So just ignore my post.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I've always wondered what you would think those afterlife rewards might be. Also, if there were a go: What the chances are for there being any rewards?

Finally, doesn't the "helping people" merit seem a little overly simple? It seems to me that help/act nicely idea is a little too simple, because it fails to account for humans who never interacted with other humans, or answer the question "help them do what?" It seems to me the entire point of the be kind/helpful merit is to help people achieve some sort of goal/discovery/act/realization/etc.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, even more insanely that he will basically give infinite rewards to those who do believe and infinite punishment to those who don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're mixing together religion, which is a bunch of add ons and papal opinions and stuff, with the literal bible.

For example, I guess the pope recently changed his mind about purgatory; it's not there anymore. In the bible there is no mention of heaven or hell; it does talk however about how *souls* die, and about how there will be a resurrection, although it does not specify what type of resurrection, and does not specify whether those resurrected will die again or what, as far as I know.

But the fundamental thing that you may be missing, is that the bible, as opposed to modern religion, is primarily a *legal* document. And as a legal book, it actually *does* talk primarily about how to treat each other as people, and how to handle natural law. For example, natural law includes prohibition against eating animal fat, which in modern terms clogs our arteries, and a prohibition against overfarming the land, which in modern terms is why our agriculture is so dependent upon chemicals and now gmo all because we refuse to let the land rest 1/7 of the time.

If you are interested in the bible one of the best easiest resources I have found is georgegordon.org and his audio archives which can be downloaded free and listened to on your computer while you do something else, like play poker or post on 2+2.

[chezlaw]

Well done (apart from the bit about the bible at the end).

It's about time you condered putting yourself in the top ten.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

Pretty sure you are running well on posting right now. Only minor nitpicks and in this post it's layered in sarcasism.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
I think virtually everybody would suspect that God's main concern would be how each of his creations treat each other. And if he did dole out rewards and punishments it would be based mainly on that. Just perhaps he might also like a little recognition for his "brilliance". Creating the universe and all that. But it would seem reasonable that he would value more recognition from those who went to the trouble of appreciating some of the specifics (by for instance learning about the intricacies of DNA) than he would from slavish sycophants who say he's wonderful but don't have a clue why.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the bible, as opposed to modern religion, is primarily a *legal* document. And as a legal book, it actually *does* talk primarily about how to treat each other as people, and how to handle natural law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Although I do believe that if people had a reason to believe in God, but no written document to guide that belief then they would turn to logic and the study of his creation to learn about him. Which I think should be done anyway... after all, when you create something you do incorporate bits of your personality, do you not?

I think even more than deriving that how we treat people is important to God, we would derive that.

From logic:
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)
2. If there is a God he is therefore absolute.
3. If God is absolute he is therefore moral. (since he is also the origin of morality)
4. If there is a God, and he is absolute as well as moral then there is an absolute morality.
5. If God exists, and absolute morality exists then absolute immorality exists as well.
6. If absolute morality and immorality exist, then that would be considered moral laws.
7. If there are absolute moral laws, then there must be absolute moral consequences.
8. If there is a God that exists with absolute moral laws and consequences then it is in our best interest to find out what those moral laws and consequences are.

If it is in our best interest to discover this, then it is in our best interest to use any means readily available. And my personal opinion is that we input our personality and character into what we create, and that if God created us he would have done the same thing. So, although I would argue that though we may not be able to study God first hand we could, and should, study what he created to gain a better understanding of his personality and character.

I think the problem often lies in that when studying something we often have a preconceived idea or premise, and intemperate the results of the study according to our study according to our premise, therefore biasing it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop you here. First contradiction!

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop you here. First contradiction!

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a contradiction. A belief or assumption maybe, but it's not a contradiction.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop you here. First contradiction!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if something is not absolute then how would it come into being if not by a cause?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop you here. First contradiction!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if something is not absolute then how would it come into being if not by a cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, even if it IS absolute.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway with only this to go on, philosophers would now get busy speculating about the details of this God,

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief would soon fragment into competing religions. In order to protect specific religions from poaching of members, defensive measured would be needed. This is likely to lead towards the assumptions that God’s main concern is belief in him, a reflection of the needs of the religion.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a God, then he is the origin of everything that exists. (since whatever begins to exist has a cause)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop you here. First contradiction!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if something is not absolute then how would it come into being if not by a cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, even if it IS absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
In the bible there is no mention of heaven or hell

[/ QUOTE ]

Look again.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Look again.

[/ QUOTE ]

help me out and I will go read it and report back.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look again.

[/ QUOTE ]

help me out and I will go read it and report back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=hell&x=0&y=0)


Heaven (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=heaven%20-heavens&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&whol ewordsonly=no)
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
It might be our best guess for him if we had no bible to spell out his qualities. But we do. So just ignore my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is tongue-in-cheek, but...

we do have the Bible, so this is kind of pointless...

[Lestat]

I thought God originally intended man to be so dumb he didn't even know he was naked! How could such a creature appreciate his other works?

It's never made sense to me why a god who keeps such a low profile would insist on blind belief and recognition as a pre-requisite to getting on his good side. No one I've ever asked has even come close to giving a satisfactory reason for this.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
But the fundamental thing that you may be missing, is that the bible, as opposed to modern religion, is primarily a *legal* document.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, you can't separate the bible from modern religion [modern Christainty].

Second, the bible is not a legal document. You would not say anything so silly if you had to actually read and use legal documents, for example a Consent Order written by toad lawyers. But this aside, I will let someone else speak about what the bible is:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obsenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. - Mark Twain


-Zeno

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought God originally intended man to be so dumb he didn't even know he was naked! How could such a creature appreciate his other works?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you're playing dumb here, in which case, c'mon man.. these threads are messy enough as it is. If you're not playing dumb then you should go read the story and it should be pretty clear. Once sin was introduced they "realized" they were naked, but anyone who's ever had an english class should be able to see that they always knew they were naked and the realization was shame becuase of the newly-introduced impurity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's never made sense to me why a god who keeps such a low profile would insist on blind belief and recognition as a pre-requisite to getting on his good side.

[/ QUOTE ]

These threads really show me the Bible in a lot of ways. You can't see the truth of God if your heart is hardened. I don't mean that to be a condemnation, I'm just constantly surprised by the totally different perspectives from nonbelievers.

To me God shouts his name through creation. I understand how you could say that he keeps a low profile, but at the same time, from my perspective there's no truth to that at all. His creation cries out to us and his son lived amongst us (with thousands of witnesses) and he gave us a big fat book all about himself that has been pretty popular over the years.

I also don't think that God insists on blind belief at all, I can't see where you're coming from on that one.

As to why things are the way they are, I would imagine you've heard it already:
We've sinned. God is just and must punish these sins. God loves us so much he sent his son to pay our penalty. We must put our faith in God and accept this gift. If you can tell me which part of this is the stumbling block I can talk about it (though I'll be out of town for a marathon from tomorrow morning to Monday).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It's never made sense to me why a god who keeps such a low profile would insist on blind belief and recognition as a pre-requisite to getting on his good side. No one I've ever asked has even come close to giving a satisfactory reason for this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont believe it myself, so this is probably a luke warm defence. Nonetheless, two responses which occur to me are:

A) It is not blind belief from the theist viewpoint. I think most theists have some sort of experience they equate with direct knowledge of god (leaving aside the fact that we may be wrong). It may be subjective and not objectively testable, but I dont think it is ever supposed to be blind. My understanding is that most christian churches (at least) say that if you look "correctly" you will find god (again, I hope the quotes make it clear I am not arguing for the point, merely pointing out it makes more sense wearing theist shoes).

B) Doesnt it seem ethical to give thanks and respect if you believe there is a benevolent, all powerful god who gave you all the good things in life and loves you totally? Who made you and all the world and wants you to have a fabulous life living happily with him, forever, etc etc...(Again, this is only addressing the "Why worship god?" question assuming he is benevolent, omnipotent, etc not the "Why do bad things happen if god is so great?" question)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell


Heaven
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


[/ QUOTE ]

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

That was from one of your links. Obviously here there is no notion of an 'immortal soul'. The heaven links a lot of them simply refer to the sky.

What I mean is the notion of an immortal soul which is a pagan concept.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the bible is not a legal document. You would not say anything so silly if you had to actually read and use legal documents, for example a Consent Order written by toad lawyers. But this aside, I will let someone else speak about what the bible is:

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course it is at least partly a legal document. It gives laws and penalties for breaking those laws. That much should be obvious.

[MidGe]

To the original question , the answer is that people would invent it. Like they have!

Not that this matter much, since whatver is in the bible is interpreted whichever way by whoever as it suits them, fundamentalists, even litteralists, or not. It is just that the latter use exegeses to suit/justify their agendae, the former don't even need that.

An example and a simple one at that:

Thou shall not kill!

Unambigous as it seems, it is quickly changed by exegetes to "Thou shall not murder" and then is overlayed with heaps of caveats that make it mean whatever one wants.

Example of caveats:
except the state judiciary imposing a death sentence, except in self-defense, except in defense of property, except in war against ennemy combatants, except for collateral civilian damages, except as a pre-emptive strike, except to change a regime whose aims one doesn't agree with, etc.., etc. The list go on!

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose the bible did not exist but people nevertheless had good reason to believe in a God that had an interest in humans and might provide an afterlife. Who knows why? Maybe because many people who were resucitated after their heart stopped woke up speaking all the languages of the world fluently. Or something like that.

Anyway with only this to go on+, philosophers would now get busy speculating about the details of this God, what he wants from us, and what he will do for us. Under these circumstances, I contend that no philosopher in his right mind would come to the conclusion that God's main concern is whether we think he exists. Or, even more insanely that he will basically give infinite rewards to those who do believe and infinite punishment to those who don't.

With little to go on, I think virtually everybody would suspect that God's main concern would be how each of his creations treat each other. And if he did dole out rewards and punishments it would be based mainly on that. Just perhaps he might also like a little recognition for his "brilliance". Creating the universe and all that. But it would seem reasonable that he would value more recognition from those who went to the trouble of appreciating some of the specifics (by for instance learning about the intricacies of DNA) than he would from slavish sycophants who say he's wonderful but don't have a clue why. Just like human experts more greatly appreciate knowledgeable fans.

Under this no bible scenario, the only people who would even entertain the idea that God's main concern is belief in him, would be those people who desperately needed it to be so. In other words people who can't cut it. They can't stop themselves from doing bad. Or not studying science. Or they have loved ones who can't cut it.

But so what. Just because us humans would expect God, if he exists, to be a certain way, doesn't mean he has to be that way. It might be our best guess for him if we had no bible to spell out his qualities. But we do. So just ignore my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done and done.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that this matter much, since whatver is in the bible is interpreted whichever way by whoever as it suits them, fundamentalists, even litteralists, or not. It is just that the latter use exegeses to suit/justify their agendae, the former don't even need that.

An example and a simple one at that:

Thou shall not kill!

Unambigous as it seems, it is quickly changed by exegetes to "Thou shall not murder" and then is overlayed with heaps of caveats that make it mean whatever one wants.

Example of caveats:
except the state judiciary imposing a death sentence, except in self-defense, except in defense of property, except in war against ennemy combatants, except for collateral civilian damages, except as a pre-emptive strike, except to change a regime whose aims one doesn't agree with, etc.., etc. The list go on!

[/ QUOTE ]
How about going back to the original Hebrew or Greek to determine intent? For an example about "Thou shall not kill" see an earlier post here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=75 59461&Searchpage=2&Main=7553457&Words=txag007&topi c=&Search=true#Post7559461).

[KUJustin]

[/ QUOTE ]The heaven links a lot of them simply refer to the sky.[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, wasn't much I could do to filter those out. I removed "heavens" from the results which helped some.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">A) It is not blind belief from the theist viewpoint. I think most theists have some sort of experience they equate with direct knowledge of god (leaving aside the fact that we may be wrong). It may be subjective and not objectively testable, but I dont think it is ever supposed to be blind. My understanding is that most christian churches (at least) say that if you look "correctly" you will find god (again, I hope the quotes make it clear I am not arguing for the point, merely pointing out it makes more sense wearing theist shoes). </font>

Thanks Bunny. I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. So the theistic point of view is basically, "Since I feel God's presence, you should too. And if you don't, you're wrong. So either GET the feeling, or burn in hell!"?

When I was a kid who believed in God, I suppose I tricked myslef into thinking I felt His presence and "knew" Him too. It wasn't until the realization (for me), that He doesn't exist that I understood I never really felt anything.

What I'm saying is that it would be sheer trickery, fun and games if you will, to give early man frequent evidence of your existence, only to completely disappear for generations without making so much as a small cameo appearance, and then... Condemming all those generations for not having believed in you. That just doesn't make sense to me.


<font color="blue"> B) Doesnt it seem ethical to give thanks and respect if you believe there is a benevolent, all powerful god who gave you all the good things in life and loves you totally? Who made you and all the world and wants you to have a fabulous life living happily with him, forever, etc etc...(Again, this is only addressing the "Why worship god?" question assuming he is benevolent, omnipotent, etc not the "Why do bad things happen if god is so great?" question) </font>

This is actually one (among many), reasons why I'm now an atheist. I used to thank God nightly in my prayers for all He has given me and to help me not waste His gifts to me and allow me to help others, etc. But I remained a slouch by my standards and kept seeing nicer people than I, get a raw deal in life. That didn't make sense to me either.

[She]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is the notion of an immortal soul which is a pagan concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting perspective. I don't agree that it is purely pagan, although it did originate there. I'll have to look into it a little. The United Church of God (http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn23/immortalsoul.htm) seems to hold this view as well. Although there are several places in the NT that seem to promote the idea.. The story of the Sadducees asking Jesus about marriage in the afterlife (http://bible.oneplace.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Mark+12%3A18-27&amp;section=0&amp;version=nkj&amp;new=1&amp;oq=&amp;NavBook=mr&amp;NavG o=12&amp;NavCurrentChapter=12) for example, and then massive places in Revelation where it talks about the reserection of the saints, the great white throne judgment and the new Jerusalem.

But like I said, it's interesting and I'm planning to look into it.

Oh, and from what I'm told some people believe there are supposedly 3(?) Heavens.. a first (the sky), second (stars), and third (where God resides). But that hasn't interested me much so I haven't looked into it and I have no basis, or opinion one way or another.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
So the theistic point of view is basically, "Since I feel God's presence, you should too. And if you don't, you're wrong. So either GET the feeling, or burn in hell!"?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is only some theists' views. Personally I think it's sinful to have such a view and I think many of Sklansky's recent threads are about proving this view wrong, or at least making it look ridiculous.

My view (and I assume Bunny's also -- correct me if I'm wrong) is that God judges behaviors and iteractions with others with much more weight than a belief in Him per se. I also believe it's easier to figure out what the correct behaviors and actions are if you believe, but that's not to say belief is absolutely necessary.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that this matter much, since whatver is in the bible is interpreted whichever way by whoever as it suits them, fundamentalists, even litteralists, or not. It is just that the latter use exegeses to suit/justify their agendae, the former don't even need that.

An example and a simple one at that:

Thou shall not kill!

Unambigous as it seems, it is quickly changed by exegetes to "Thou shall not murder" and then is overlayed with heaps of caveats that make it mean whatever one wants.

Example of caveats:
except the state judiciary imposing a death sentence, except in self-defense, except in defense of property, except in war against ennemy combatants, except for collateral civilian damages, except as a pre-emptive strike, except to change a regime whose aims one doesn't agree with, etc.., etc. The list go on!

[/ QUOTE ]
How about going back to the original Hebrew or Greek to determine intent? For an example about "Thou shall not kill" see an earlier post here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=75 59461&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Main=7553457&amp;Words=txag007&amp;topi c=&amp;Search=true#Post7559461).

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought "Thou shalt not kill" meant you can't kill other Jews. At least originally. Maybe Paul changed that?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">A) It is not blind belief from the theist viewpoint. I think most theists have some sort of experience they equate with direct knowledge of god (leaving aside the fact that we may be wrong). It may be subjective and not objectively testable, but I dont think it is ever supposed to be blind. My understanding is that most christian churches (at least) say that if you look "correctly" you will find god (again, I hope the quotes make it clear I am not arguing for the point, merely pointing out it makes more sense wearing theist shoes). </font>

Thanks Bunny. I see what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense to me. So the theistic point of view is basically, "Since I feel God's presence, you should too. And if you don't, you're wrong. So either GET the feeling, or burn in hell!"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is lapsing into one of the many versions of christianity - and it doesnt seem consistent with jesus's teachings to me. Nonetheless, I think the point is that a theist has faith that you will be given the opportunity to know god at some point and hopes that you take it. How god prioritises "being a good person" vs "trusting in him" seems to have many interpretations.

[ QUOTE ]
When I was a kid who believed in God, I suppose I tricked myslef into thinking I felt His presence and "knew" Him too. It wasn't until the realization (for me), that He doesn't exist that I understood I never really felt anything.

What I'm saying is that it would be sheer trickery, fun and games if you will, to give early man frequent evidence of your existence, only to completely disappear for generations without making so much as a small cameo appearance, and then... Condemming all those generations for not having believed in you. That just doesn't make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - in my view this position would be inconsistent with a benevolent god.


[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> B) Doesnt it seem ethical to give thanks and respect if you believe there is a benevolent, all powerful god who gave you all the good things in life and loves you totally? Who made you and all the world and wants you to have a fabulous life living happily with him, forever, etc etc...(Again, this is only addressing the "Why worship god?" question assuming he is benevolent, omnipotent, etc not the "Why do bad things happen if god is so great?" question) </font>

This is actually one (among many), reasons why I'm now an atheist. I used to thank God nightly in my prayers for all He has given me and to help me not waste His gifts to me and allow me to help others, etc. But I remained a slouch by my standards and kept seeing nicer people than I, get a raw deal in life. That didn't make sense to me either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can understand that - I was merely providing some sort of answer to "why should god care if we worship him". Something along the lines of - god wants us to behave ethically and it is ethical to give thanks to somebody with the proposed attributes of god.

It leaves a whole lot of questions unanswered, such as your "Why me?" or the inevitable "Why not just good things? Why bad things too?" Irresepective of these - I think it is not so unreasonable that god would want us to pay him respect (without presenting him as vain or selfish - it's just inherently a good thing to thank someone who has done what he has for us).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The story of the Sadducees asking Jesus about marriage in the afterlife for example, and then massive places in Revelation where it talks about the reserection of the saints, the great white throne judgment and the new Jerusalem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes according to the bible there will definitely be resurrection(s), but what that will mean is not spelled out. What it does say is that after you are resurrected if you don't pass muster you will be thrown into a fiery pit and burned up, so it seems to me that death will certainly be possible after the resurrection. Whether it is unavoidable or not is unclear.

The fact that souls do indeed die though, is very clear.