A theoretical God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2024, 16:48 (10 days ago)

My approach as published here:

"Welcome to faith and trust. I take from theologian presentations what fits my concepts developed from reading Adler's books and Karen Anderson's "A History of God", clearly describing Hebrew, Christian and Muslim forms of God as they evolved. Not a glimmer of your contrived versions."

https://aeon.co/essays/how-monotheists-modelled-god-on-a-harem-keeping-alpha-male?utm_s...

"...there is little doubt that the great majority of believers imagine a personal god who can be spoken to, who answers prayers, who has strong opinions and often discernible emotions, too: sad, angry, pleased, displeased, vengeful, jealous, forgiving, loving, and so forth.

"Not everyone buys into a sky-god with a long white beard, a serious and all-knowing mien, capable of rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad. But it doesn’t take much imagination to recognise that God, as worshipped in most of the world, is remarkably humanoid, widely perceived as possessing many of those features that are associated with ‘alpha males’: a great, big, scary, wilful, yet nourishing and protective guy… in short, a silverback gorilla writ large.

***

"Among monotheists, God is universally seen as not only great but literally The Greatest in every respect: power, wisdom, goodness and so forth, just as silverback male gorillas would doubtless describe themselves and demand that their subordinates agree.

***

"‘Scary’: it is dangerous to challenge the status of the alpha harem-master. After all, he got there by being not only omnipotent and omniscient, but also omni-destroying – or at least, highly threatening – when crossed. For the monotheist, fear of God is more than a prerequisite for belief in Him: the two are nearly identical.

"‘Wilful’: God generally has very strong opinions, not least that He must be obeyed. A truly omnipotent being presumably could orchestrate things as He chooses, but instead – like an alpha male harem-master who is currently in charge but who has to constantly guard against intruders (against takeovers by other wannabe alphas – or in religious terms, competing gods) – he is jealous, vengeful of those who disobey, vigorously prohibiting any backsliding or counter-revolutionary support for competitors.

"‘Nourishing’: one way or another, harem-keepers are expected to benefit their underlings, often by their success in hunting, warfare or by successfully orchestrating not only their own fertility (via their wives) but also the flourishing of the other group members. Garcia notes that the Bible and Quran are both larded with numerous references to God’s provisioning of his flock: for example, ‘He provides food for those who fear him; He remembers His covenant Forever’ (Psalm 111:15), ‘And it is He who feeds me and gives me drink’ (Quran 26:79), ‘It is He who made the earth tame for you – so walk among its slopes and eat of His provision’ (Quran 67:15).

"‘Protective’: just as the silverback guards his harem with ferocious protectiveness, so too does God. ‘But you, Lord, do not be far from me,’ implores the psalmist. ‘You are my strength; come quickly to help me. Deliver me from the sword,

***

"‘Guy’: the monotheist God is male as are His chief representatives on earth, just like primate harem-keepers. It shouldn’t be surprising that religious leaders are prone to employing the great, big, scary, wilful, yet nourishing and protective guy when seeking to achieve and reinforce their dominance. Why would their followers even succumb to this domination? To some extent, it takes a willing subject to be led down the path of perceiving God as a powerful, harem-keeping entity.

***

"The big three Abrahamic religions most especially maintain that God strongly disapproves of various sexual practices, not just adultery. It is clear not only from the numerous examples adduced in Alpha God, but from the Bible and the Quran themselves, that the Abrahamic God is likely to be incensed by pretty much any kind of sexual pleasure, including homosexuality, masturbation, oral or anal sex, revealing clothing, even libidinous thoughts. Sexual restraint is a terrific way to avert jealous anger on the part of any dominant harem-keeper."

Comment: the comparison with a silver back keeping a haram is terribly overdrawn. The vengeful, terrifying, angry God in this essay is not any God I know. Per Anderson, the God here belongs in the OT, as God's love appears in the NT, and we find a more intellectual approach in the Quran where God is studied through His amazing works. Then Adler tells me how to think about God as a non-human personage. That is what I have tried here.

A theoretical God

by dhw, Tuesday, November 12, 2024, 11:15 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: the comparison with a silver back keeping a haram is terribly overdrawn. The vengeful, terrifying, angry God in this essay is not any God I know. Per Anderson, the God here belongs in the OT, as God's love appears in the NT, and we find a more intellectual approach in the Quran where God is studied through His amazing works. Then Adler tells me how to think about God as a non-human personage. That is what I have tried here.

Yes indeed, this is the OT God. And let’s face it, all three major monotheistic religions insist that their view of God is right, and history past and present has believers killing one another if they disagree. I don’t know of any religion, however, that regards the imagined eternal, sourceless creator of the universe as a human personage. They all imagine him as having certain human attributes, as described by this writer, and as described by you when you impose your own view on God of his purpose for creating life and us. The only difference is that you constantly contradict yourself. At various times you call him benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, but inefficient, imperfect, and even forced to create what he doesn't want to create; you have him enjoying, interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized, but selfless; he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but he is in no way human. The author of this article is fixated upon the negative images provided by the OT, and you lurch from one set of contradictions to another, but in your clearer moments at least you have the honesty to admit that your muddled beliefs and wishes are “schizophrenic” and in fact nobody knows the truth.

A theoretical God

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 12, 2024, 17:08 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: the comparison with a silver back keeping a haram is terribly overdrawn. The vengeful, terrifying, angry God in this essay is not any God I know. Per Anderson, the God here belongs in the OT, as God's love appears in the NT, and we find a more intellectual approach in the Quran where God is studied through His amazing works. Then Adler tells me how to think about God as a non-human personage. That is what I have tried here.

dhw: Yes indeed, this is the OT God. And let’s face it, all three major monotheistic religions insist that their view of God is right, and history past and present has believers killing one another if they disagree. I don’t know of any religion, however, that regards the imagined eternal, sourceless creator of the universe as a human personage. They all imagine him as having certain human attributes, as described by this writer, and as described by you when you impose your own view on God of his purpose for creating life and us. The only difference is that you constantly contradict yourself. At various times you call him benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, but inefficient, imperfect, and even forced to create what he doesn't want to create; you have him enjoying, interested, wanting a relationship, wanting to be recognized, but selfless; he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but he is in no way human. The author of this article is fixated upon the negative images provided by the OT, and you lurch from one set of contradictions to another, but in your clearer moments at least you have the honesty to admit that your muddled beliefs and wishes are “schizophrenic” and in fact nobody knows the truth.

Considering what has been created, especially the massive complexity of the biochemistry of life, one must presume a God with endless capacities and knowledge. That is how I start my view of God. Following Adler, the appearance of humans through natural evolution is so unusual a result, we are God's primary purpose in evolving us. How we relate to God is an endless discussion here, along with how He relates to us. You have one fixed view of a humanized God while my views keep evolving and many steps I've taken are contradictory to past positions. But at least I am exploring possibilities.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum