Why do believers use one set of rules for Humanity and another set of rules for God?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

If you really want to ponder religious ideas, the first step is to aquire humility. Insinuating that your knowledge of good and evil surpasses that of God is not that step.

That presupposes you believe in God. You do not have to believe in God to ponder about religious ideas.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is a thread asking why believers use one set of rules for Humanity, and another set of rules for God. I’m going to list the inconsistencies below:

Hey, give us the link to the atheist website you got these off of.

Lying: "“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).
Of course, virtually everyone knows the above biblical verse is not true.

It’s absolutely true.

The rest of your post’s “inconsistencies” aren’t, either.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Hey, give us the link to the atheist website you got these off of.

I never got it from another site. I’m a former Catholic and I’ve read the Bible since I was a child, so there is no need for me to obtain it from a third-party source.

And what does that even have to do with the original question anyway?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

That presupposes you believe in God. You do not have to believe in God to ponder about religious ideas.

The etymological root of the word religion is “to bind”. When used to describe someone of faith, a religious person is one who binds or submits themselves to God. If you try to remove the word “God” from this definition, you are simply left with “bind”. To what are you binding yourself while pondering religious ideas? Yourself? Nature? Your car? Nothingness?

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I was just reading the introduction to Chesterton’s biography of Aquinas and came across a passage that is pertinent to this discussion.

“Chesterton goes unerringly to the central teaching of Thomas, namely, that faith and reason are compatible, and that there cannot be a conflict between them. Latin Averroism, the more or less chuckle-headed way in which young masters of arts in thirteenth-century Paris thought they could think one thing and believe its opposite, holding one thing by faith and its contradictory by reason, elicited the wrath of Aquinas, something not easy to do. But he saw in Latin Averroism the height, or depth, of impiety. The Latin Averroist was saying in effect that God asks us to believe what we know to be false. The complementarity of faith and reason is in many ways the centerpiece of Chesterton’s account of Thomas, and it is as relevant now as it ever was. Believers have a woeful tendency to speak of the faith as unrelated to reason, as if it were not reasonable to believe in the God of Revelation. The technical name for this distrust of reason is Fideism. Chesterton’s little book will inoculate the reader against any tendency to fideism.”

Is it not the OP’s complaint that God asks us to believe unreasonable things? It appears that Aquinas supplies the antidote for such a malady.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The etymological root of the word religion is “to bind”. When used to describe someone of faith, a religious person is one who binds or submits themselves to God.

I’ve got to disagree with that. Not all religions have refer to “God.” Some have no gods, some have many gods.

If this statement were qualified with the word “monotheistic” somewhere then I would not raise this same disagreement (though not all monotheistics refer to the same “God.” But that’s another topic).

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

How about if I replaced “God” with “the divine”? I think you are raising finer points that are usually adressed after the admission of religion.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How about if I replaced “God” with “the divine”? I think you are raising finer points that are usually adressed after the admission of religion.

I don’t think changes much Not all religions have a concept of divine (ex: Classical Buddhism). Of the ones that do they don’t agree with their conception of divine. In Hinduism the “divine beings” are very human like, sharing many some of the same flaws, emotions, and weaknesses of humans to an exaggerated extent (note: some Hindu’s see those of the religion of Jainism as “atheistic” for “rejecting” this concept of the divine). This is much different that the concept of “divine” promoted by those of western religions. People of some religions may bind themselves to certain concepts that they see as divine but this isn’t a universal among those that can be called “religious.”

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Not all religions have a concept of divine (ex: Classical Buddhism)

Before I became Catholic, I actually practised classical Buddhism for about a year. If you think they do not have a concept of the divine then you have not studied it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I never got it from another site. I’m a former Catholic and I’ve read the Bible since I was a child, so there is no need for me to obtain it from a third-party source.

And what does that even have to do with the original question anyway?

Just looking for context. But the original question, which I did address, you ignored,. Problem is, the question is based on a false premise, two of them, actually.

So, now that you are an atheist, why are you here?

 

[someguy14]

Believer’s serve one set of rule’s, Gods.

 

[Pieman333272]

Lying: "“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).
Of course, virtually everyone knows the above biblical verse is not true. Those who believe try and “worm their way out” by saying that a prayer is dependent on God’s will, and it is ultimately God’s will that is done. But nowhere in these verses, or those to follow, does it suggest that an answered prayer is dependent on God’s will. This amounts to lying by omission - lying by deliberately leaving out a crucial truth. This is punishable by law in some jurisdictions. Businesses can be sued for such an action. Yet believers believe this is somehow acceptable for the one who they worship, the one who is supposed to be the bastion of virtue. We find similar empty promises and statements with devotions such as the rosary: “You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary” (11th Promise).

I can only answer this one now, but your objection fails based on 3 grounds:

1. The usage of rhetoric in ancient Judaism
2. The Second-Temple Jewish view of God’s will

and

1. The context of what you were expected to ask for

Now, as for 1), the whole “anything you want” thing is an example of hyperbole, used to make a point, not be interpreted literally. Interpretations that it was literal didn’t come until over 1000 years after the fact, by the time of which language had changed enough for a literal interpretation to be warranted on modern semantics, but not ancient ones - and only the ancient ones really matter in understanding scripture.

1. and 3) refute your claim that “But nowhere in these verses, or those to follow, does it suggest that an answered prayer is dependent on God’s will”, which, for the record, is based on flawed philosophical and historical methodology anyway. You’re right in that it doesn’t say that, but it doesn’t matter, 2nd-temple Judaism views God as a grand permitter, one who upholds his end of a deal between him and his chosen people. Everybody already knew God didn’t actually give whatever you wanted, especially as easily as you having faith. Second, and this is point 3), the limitations are clearly set. Matt. 6:11 makes clear the Our Father is for daily needs, and “good things” as in 7:11 referred to general prosperity and agricultural success. So, it’s almost certainly an example of hyperbole (which is not lying), and if not, then “restricted literalism”, that is, it was literal, but the literalism you like to think it has is not actually what it was in reference to, but a stricter version based on context.

All in all, all the alleged cases of God claiming to give you whatever you want for prayer are based on a decontextualization of passages. It’s not your fault, but try to look into the context beyond the verses before and after it next time.

I can’t speak for the rosary example, but it’s almost certainly under 1), and probably 2) and 3) too, but in a non-Jewish context.

 

[Jmd96]

I’m disappointed that no one responded to my lengthy post, #29. I was looking forward to discussing the topic…

 

[StarFireKK]

I’m disappointed that no one responded to my lengthy post, #29. I was looking forward to discussing the topic…

I liked your post #29. I thought it was very clear and well written. I didn’t respond because I happen to agree with you.

 

[Nate13]

This is a thread asking why believers use one set of rules for Humanity, and another set of rules for God. I’m going to list the inconsistencies below:

Lying: "“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).
Of course, virtually everyone knows the above biblical verse is not true. Those who believe try and “worm their way out” by saying that a prayer is dependent on God’s will, and it is ultimately God’s will that is done. But nowhere in these verses, or those to follow, does it suggest that an answered prayer is dependent on God’s will. This amounts to lying by omission - lying by deliberately leaving out a crucial truth. This is punishable by law in some jurisdictions. Businesses can be sued for such an action. Yet believers believe this is somehow acceptable for the one who they worship, the one who is supposed to be the bastion of virtue. We find similar empty promises and statements with devotions such as the rosary: “You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary” (11th Promise).

See Jas 1:5-8. I believe if you continue reading after the vs. referenced in Matthew you will see the context. “Father who is in heaven will give good things to those who ask!” So here you see clarification that he won’t just give anything, he will give good things. God sees the grand scheme of things so who better to know what is truly good for us then Him? I’d also suggest looking at Lk 18:1, Col 4:2, and 1 Thess 5:17. I’m sorry if you believe this explanation is dodging the question. I see it accepting the realty of what he is saying. I also have to wonder at your definition of a lie. If I tell you something and you misunderstand it did I lie to you?

Deadbeat dad: “Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years” (Exodus 12:40).
Israel, God’s people, spent 430 years (although some sources suggest 400) years in captivity. This was willingly allowed by God for no good apparent reason. Believers will respond by saying suffering is good (a maxim that defies human nature) and that God is right for having left the Israelites in bondage for so long. If an earthly father, on the other hand, left his child and did not see him, he would be regarded as a deadbeat dad. He would be an abomination. He would be insulted, degraded and possibly spat at. He would be displayed on the Maury show like a circus animal. Even Jesus wonders why his father would forsake him: ““Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”–which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). Again, we find that one set of rules is used for Humanity, and another set of rules is used for God.

First off I have to correct your grave misunderstanding of Jesus calling out on the cross. The words “My God my God, why have you forsaken me?” are the beginning of Psalm 22 which actually is a psalm that glorifies the power of God. Jesus was not despairing Everyone at the cross would have recognized what he was quoting from immediately. He says the first line and everybody immediately thinks of the entire psalm.

“This was willingly allowed for no good apparent reason.” The entirety of the Old Testament is a description of everything God does to try to get the Israelite’s to realize their human condition and turn to God for help. When they succeed at doing this and realize that they can do nothing without God, they are rewarded. When they lose sight of this God allows them to endure suffering in order that they may realize their weakness and turn back to God. I’m curious as to why you expect us to be able to explain everything God does in detail for you though. By that thinking no one should believe that man evolved from apes since you can’t explain completely how this occurred and there are gaps in the reasoning behind it. Just because an explanation isn’t apparent to you does not mean one does not exist. If you want to understand why God may have wanted allow the Israelite’s to live in captivity for 430 years, why don’t you start by looking for the benefits that resulted because of this. You should also take a hint from the Israelite’s themselves who did not despair in God even after all that time. You might compare God allowing the Israelite’s to be enslaved to a human father who watches his son or daughter go off to college. It is brutal to watch and you know they are going to be challenged about their beliefs in so many ways and have to face so many temptations. When they come out of it though they are so much stronger for it.
Thank you in advance.

 

[tonyrey]

Why do non-believers use any sets of rules for Humanity at all?!