Can you be smarter than even “God”?

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

If you had god's alleged super-powers, rightwinger, would you have given your most important message of all time (Bible, or Qur'an, or whatever, allegedly) in many many different languages, so that your beloved "children" (god loves us, they claim) would be far less confused by having to have translations? I would have, and so would other Scientific Humanists, because excellent communication is a goal of ours.

We can be a better communicator than god, if we work at it (hey that would be point #5 in the article/OP!) Let's do that.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

I'm not sure that you can specifically refute any of the 4 specific claims in the OP, my friend. Give it a try, I do believe in you, however.

.

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

so the OP should have used the anthropomorphic god of the 4th century christian bible as an example is correct ... what conceived non-anthropomorphically creator of a scriptural religion exists on plant Earth to be discussed, do you have one.

 

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

It would be great if god was a better communicator - can we agree on that? For example, you want the best communication between you and your children, right? Same thing with god and his "children" (humanity), right?

 

[Joy4Uall]

As a society, we are more ethical than the Bible

Our society has outlawed slavery, provided equal rights to women, recognized Civil Rights, accepted gays as equals, outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, protected children, many states have outlawed capital punishment

Things the Bible still endorses

According to the OT. Again, more cherry-picking from religious partisans.

So you've removed the OT from your Bible, then, apparently?

 

[yiostheoy]

The thread survey is split 7 to 7 if you add up all the non-NO votes.

So 14 people out of about 75 (the average active population) saw fit to answer the poll, half of which are to some extent reflective and devout while the other half are skeptical and defiant.

I wonder if 50-50 holds for the whole forum?

I wonder if it holds for the whole Nation?

I wonder if it hold for the whole World?

 

[yiostheoy]

As a society, we are more ethical than the Bible

Our society has outlawed slavery, provided equal rights to women, recognized Civil Rights, accepted gays as equals, outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, protected children, many states have outlawed capital punishment

Things the Bible still endorses

According to the OT. Again, more cherry-picking from religious partisans.

So you've removed the OT from your Bible, then, apparently?

The OT and the NT are completely unrelated.

The OT is really called the Tenakh and is a compilation of Jewish scripture.

The NT is really called the Greek New Testament since it is originally Greek and it is a compilation of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, which currently the Jews do not recognize as scriptural nor authoritarian.

So splitting these two narratives makes perfect sense.

Unfortunately a lot of Christian groups meld them, which is a big mistake.

... Christian here having the meaning of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and other groups who refer to Jesus and His teaching in any form, like Christian Science, Holy Roller, JW's, etc.

 

[yiostheoy]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

It would be great if god was a better communicator - can we agree on that? For example, you want the best communication between you and your children, right? Same thing with god and his "children" (humanity), right?

You are second guessing the purposes and intentions of God.

You are assuming that face to face communication with God by Mankind is a GOOD thing and does not defeat the purposes of God in the first place.

If life is like an NFL training camp, which I surmise that it is, then too much intercommunication defeats the purpose of the test.

It is most likely that God's purpose is to convince you yourself of your own constitution and nature. Ergo God will keep His/Her/Their distance while you go thru the crucible on your own.

God already knows what you are like, but you don't know it yet.

God already knows if you belong in Heaven or Hell, but you don't know it yet.

The crucible is for your eyes not God's eyes.

God's infinite foreknowledge has predestined you to Heaven or Hell already.

 

[rightwinger]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

 

[yiostheoy]

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

I'm not sure that you can specifically refute any of the 4 specific claims in the OP, my friend. Give it a try, I do believe in you, however.

.

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

so the OP should have used the anthropomorphic god of the 4th century christian bible as an example is correct ... what conceived non-anthropomorphically creator of a scriptural religion exists on plant Earth to be discussed, do you have one.

The O/P is very weak about his/her notion of what is God?

Extremely weak philosophically, in terms of formal Modern Philosophy.

Relatively weak in terms of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim doctrine.

Probably has studied little about Asian Eastern Religions either.

The O/P's narrative seems to be sinister -- ergo since God does not communicate well (a false premise) therefore God does not exist.

This argument and thread are all Satanic.

This O/P has a place in Hell waiting for him/her.

 

[Joy4Uall]

As a society, we are more ethical than the Bible

Our society has outlawed slavery, provided equal rights to women, recognized Civil Rights, accepted gays as equals, outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, protected children, many states have outlawed capital punishment

Things the Bible still endorses

According to the OT. Again, more cherry-picking from religious partisans.

So you've removed the OT from your Bible, then, apparently?

The OT and the NT are completely unrelated.
.....

Then we agree that (like the Book of Scientific Humanism) bringing forward on the GOOD parts of the OT would be what's best for the world, correct?

Have a great week, my friend....and keep posting - I look forward to your posts as they are more concise than my often lengthy paragraphs are.

 

[yiostheoy]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

This notion of the atrociousness is also Satanic and classic atheist as well.

Jews who were not rescued from the German death camps are often embittered like this, especially those who survived but lost family there.

So is the glass half empty or half full? They survived but they are not thankful.

There is a place in Hell waiting for these sinister atheists as well.

 

[yiostheoy]

As a society, we are more ethical than the Bible

Our society has outlawed slavery, provided equal rights to women, recognized Civil Rights, accepted gays as equals, outlawed cruel and unusual punishment, protected children, many states have outlawed capital punishment

Things the Bible still endorses

According to the OT. Again, more cherry-picking from religious partisans.

So you've removed the OT from your Bible, then, apparently?

The OT and the NT are completely unrelated.
.....

Then we agree that (like the Book of Scientific Humanism) bringing forward on the GOOD parts of the OT would be what's best for the world, correct?

Have a great week, my friend....and keep posting - I look forward to your posts as they are more concise than my often lengthy paragraphs.)

No idea what your "book of scientific humanism" is.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

I'm not sure that you can specifically refute any of the 4 specific claims in the OP, my friend. Give it a try, I do believe in you, however.

.

Your question misses an important option addressing the anthropomorphic error. In other words, asking whether God is "smart" is wrongly presupposing God's human characteristics. It's like asking whether we can be smarter than Truth. God conceived non-anthropomorphically renders the question unintelligible.

so the OP should have used the anthropomorphic god of the 4th century christian bible as an example is correct ... what conceived non-anthropomorphically creator of a scriptural religion exists on plant Earth to be discussed, do you have one.

The O/P is very weak about his/her notion of what is God?

Extremely weak philosophically, in terms of formal Modern Philosophy.

Relatively weak in terms of Christian, Jewish, or Muslim doctrine.

Probably has studied little about Asian Eastern Religions either.

The O/P's narrative seems to be sinister -- ergo since God does not communicate well (a false premise) therefore God does not exist.

This argument and thread are all Satanic.

This O/P has a place in Hell waiting for him/her.

Would YOU arrest the devil, if you had the chance (just say)? Scientific Humanists would, because we are driven by a number of concepts including "don't tolerate intolerance" - and the "Satan" is allegedly responsible for intolerance towards other beliefs, and/or races, and/or other ethnicities, and/or gays, and/or towards women, arguably.

 

[rightwinger]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

rightwinger, as effectively a Scientific Humanist, I'm 100% sure that you can answer "yes" to this question (Christians won't answer "yes", so we need to help them see a more ethical way): "would you, if you had Jesus' alleged all-powerful skills, have pointed out which of the OT verses are immoral - especially if you were a self-proclaimed moral teacher like Jesus was?"

Since Jesus didn't do that (or else of course many of the 1321 cruel and violent verses in the Bible would not be there anymore - Christians would find their morality), people are left to wonder "is slavery and killing and beating ok, or is the OT wrong?"

You answer "yes", right, uh, rightwinger?

I cannot answer Yes. I think Jesus took organized religion to a new level
The OT was written with more of a stick than a carrot. People were simple at that time. Join this religion or be horribly punished. Question what you are told and you will die.

Jesus recognized the overall good of man. A man capable of making choices for helping and healing. For his time, Jesus was a radical leading followers to an new interpretation of what the nature of God was. He was killed for it

 

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

This notion of the atrociousness is also Satanic and classic atheist as well.

Jews who were not rescued from the German death camps are often embittered like this, especially those who survived but lost family there.

....

Would you have answered the prayers of the innocent Jewish children in the Holocaust (if you had that ability)?
Scientific Humanists of course answer "yes" to that question.
So that puts us above Jesus, ethically.
You can join us in moving to a higher level of love and compassion than even Jesus, my friend.

 

[rightwinger]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

This notion of the atrociousness is also Satanic and classic atheist as well.

Jews who were not rescued from the German death camps are often embittered like this, especially those who survived but lost family there.

So is the glass half empty or half full? They survived but they are not thankful.

There is a place in Hell waiting for these sinister atheists as well.

God is a big boy
Being all knowing and creating the universe instills certain responsibilities

Destroying the earth and killing innocent babies, puppies and kittens is not the act of a caring rational being
Killing the first children of Egypt is not the act of an ethical being

 

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

rightwinger, as effectively a Scientific Humanist, I'm 100% sure that you can answer "yes" to this question (Christians won't answer "yes", so we need to help them see a more ethical way): "would you, if you had Jesus' alleged all-powerful skills, have pointed out which of the OT verses are immoral - especially if you were a self-proclaimed moral teacher like Jesus was?"

Since Jesus didn't do that (or else of course many of the 1321 cruel and violent verses in the Bible would not be there anymore - Christians would find their morality), people are left to wonder "is slavery and killing and beating ok, or is the OT wrong?"

You answer "yes", right, uh, rightwinger?

I cannot answer Yes. I think Jesus took organized religion to a new level
The OT was written with more of a stick than a carrot. People were simple at that time. Join this religion or be horribly punished. Question what you are told and you will die.

Jesus recognized the overall good of man. A man capable of making choices for helping and healing. For his time, Jesus was a radical leading followers to an new interpretation of what the nature of God was. He was killed for it

I'm shocked!
If he had pointed out the bad verses, such as approval of slavery, then I bet the Christians that used the Bible to JUSTIFY SLAVERY DURING THE CIVIL WAR would not have had that divine justification ("god can't be wrong!") for slavery - the most barbaric act next to murder and genocide. Just think of the suffering that might have been reduced had Jesus spoken out!

Scientific Humanists would of course have spoken out because our #1 commandment of our 10 Commandments is.....freedom. Jesus was not as big on freedom as SH is, obviously. So SH is better for the world than Jesus is....unless one believes in communism, then maybe they would not agree with us. That's their right.

 

[Joy4Uall]

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

This notion of the atrociousness is also Satanic and classic atheist as well.

Jews who were not rescued from the German death camps are often embittered like this, especially those who survived but lost family there.

So is the glass half empty or half full? They survived but they are not thankful.

There is a place in Hell waiting for these sinister atheists as well.

God is a big boy
Being all knowing and creating the universe instills certain responsibilities

Destroying the earth and killing innocent babies, puppies and kittens is not the act of a caring rational being
Killing the first children of Egypt is not the act of an ethical being

One of today's best posts!
Example #6 of how you can be smarter than god: rightwinger, what ALTERNATIVES to killing innocent children can you come up with, to show that you are smarter than even "god"?

 

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

This notion of the atrociousness is also Satanic and classic atheist as well.

Jews who were not rescued from the German death camps are often embittered like this, especially those who survived but lost family there.

So is the glass half empty or half full? They survived but they are not thankful.

There is a place in Hell waiting for these sinister atheists as well.

Hateful people would likely end up in "hell", if it exists. We love gays, we love Muslims, we love Jews.....can you join us in saying that you love gays, you love Muslims, and you love Jews?
If so, then you'll have joined us in moving, morally, even beyond god/Jesus (what a great feeling.)

Have a great week.

 

[Joy4Uall]

In the following parable, Jesus approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing wrong - and he never spoke against slavery (so we assume he fully accepted slavery):
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

A servant in this parable is not a "slave".

"Behold my servant shall deal wisely,
he shall be exalted and lifted up, and
shall be very high."—Is. lii. 13.

Since the Bible was not written in English, it is difficult to say whether the interpretation of servant or slave is correct. Servant implies wages and being free to leave at any time...I don't think this was the case
In either case, beating and killing is not warranted in any ethical society

Parables are not meant to be taken literally. Servant in this parable implies "spiritual" servant, imo.

I think that interpretation is a stretch

There were no "spiritual" servants. There were millions of people forced into labor, beaten and abused. For God not to stand up for them is atrocious

You're really on a roll today. You're countering their acceptance of Biblical atrocities with ethical thinking. You've moved beyond their "god", to be sure. I like how you are helping them to see a new way of looking at things - you want to help them.