this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
70 points (78.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36180 readers
1102 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago

Assuming we’re discussing the Abrahamic God, He used to be much smaller in scope; in fact, He was the ancient Jewish War God, back when they had a full polytheistic pantheon. So if we’re going back to the original myths, He didn’t really create humans, nor was He all-powerful or all-seeing, or ‘above-it-all’ in general.

(This is back in the days when Gods were more seen as local clan/town sponsors, like how Athena is the patron God of Athens. He was just a tribal patron god, one they prayed to in order to be safe and successful in war.)

Also, back then Gods in general were written as being much closer to humans, in term of emotions and motivations—again, Greek mythology gives a good showing of this, but you can read a lot of ancient myths and see it in play.

As Jehovah became more and more popular (due to all the wars in the region), He started to absorb many of the myths and abilities of the rest of the pantheon, which is why He seems kind of schizophrenic in the older stories. YHWH was actually the head of the pantheon, and as Jehovah supplanted Him as the ancient proto-Jewish tribes moved towards monotheism, the two Gods ended up essentially being merged with each other.

Still, back then, while Gods were seen as powerful, they were still somewhat seen as limited and fallible. In fact even today there is a strong Jewish tradition of questioning God (albeit politely and a bit indirectly so as not to get turned into salt or whatever).

But, as Judaism grew, and split off into Christianity and Islam, God’s followers began tack on more and more powers and abilities to make Him sound cooler (and increase the power of the Church). So that’s where the ‘all-seeing’ and ‘all-powerful’ Great-God-of-Everything business comes from, really.

TL;DR ‘God wasn’t all-powerful and was ‘written’ to have emotions much closer to humans when those creation myths were first being told.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 13 hours ago

Because it's all made up. It's foolish to expect any of it to make sense or be consistent.

First prove that this god even exists, then maybe we can have a discussion about it's properties.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 21 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

The answer to this is going to differ heavily from religion to religion. You've already been inundated with the atheist and agnostic response. Christian theology could give you a few different answers.

The Bible could been seen as man's interpretation of God, therefore God's will is placed in terms we understand: emotions. Calling God jealous, angry, sorrowful, or joyful is a lot easier than asking you to understand a four-dimensional physical space. The latter is beyond your perception, much like understanding the "feelings" God exhibits, so it is simplified to terms you can understand.

The second potential answer would be: why wouldn't he/she be? You've made the assumption that emotions are bad or wrong, but if you throw out that assumption, there's nothing wrong with an emotional God. Maybe being "beyond that" is in fact a mistake? If he/she made us in his/her image, then of course we are given emotions similiar to God. Ultimately, who are you or I to judge whether such feelings are good or bad, or make a being imperfect?

Admittedly, I am deeply agnostic myself, because I ultimately don't buy any of the explinations I've provided here. But I've taken time and energy to understand Western theology, rather than dismiss it out of hand, and these are the explinations I suspect you are likliest to find.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it's all made up.

[–] Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 6 hours ago

Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it's all made up.

Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Theology is not a belief in God. It is a study of the belief in God, the connection between humankind and the possibility of God, and the philosophies grounded in religious doctrine. Saying that trying to understand theology is a waste of time is the same as saying that trying to understand any social science is a waste of time.

You may dismiss the beliefs as "all made up", but their impact on our world is very real. Is studying politics a waste of time because it's "all made up"? Or are the arbitrary thoughts and feelings on how the world should be run suddenly more important because we've removed a belief that you personally disagree with?

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Most theology is faith based and serves the purpose of dogmatically justifying and legitimising the religion in question. And all too often cover up the abuses. Of course I'm aware that there is also theology that follows a more scientific approach but if you go by the number of practitioners, that's surely a pretty small minority.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 28 points 18 hours ago

Going down the God rabbit hole is frustrating and ultimately unsatisfying. Every answer boils down to faith, which is basically belief without proof.

To paraphrase someone: If God is all-good, then God can’t be all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then God can’t be all-good.

I probably sound like I’m being dismissive of people who believe in God. That’s not my intent. Faith can be a healthy source of strength in difficult times, and when dealing with our chaotic world. I only have an issue when blind faith is allowed to override common sense, like not getting your kids vaccinated, or drinking raw milk.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

“There is no god but man.” - Aleister Crowley

God didn’t design us in his image, we designed him in ours.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

1 In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created him.

2 And Man gave unto God a multitude of names,that he might be Lord of all the earth when it was suited to Man.

3 And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

4 And Man formed Aqualung of the dust of the ground, and a host of others likened unto his kind.

5 And these lesser men were cast into the void; And some were burned, and some were put apart from their kind.

6 And Man became the God that he had created and with his miracles did rule over all the earth.

7 But as all these things came to pass, the Spirit that did cause man to create his God lived on within all men: even within Aqualung.

8 And man saw it not.

9 But for Christ's sake he'd better start looking.

  • from the aqualung album cover - jethro tull.
[–] cabbage@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

One hell of an album.

I don't believe you
You got the whole damn thing all wrong
He's not the kind you have to wind up
On Sundays

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

“God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs”

[–] sxan@midwest.social 45 points 20 hours ago (4 children)

This is "no stupid questions," but asking rational questions about religion is a waste of time. In most religions, the answer ultimately "you are too stupid to understand the great plan of god."

You can debate interpretation of religious texts, or how best to follow the laws religions set down; but questioning articles of faith is fruitless.

Christianity is especially full of self-contradictions and paradoxes: can God create a rock so big he can't lift it? You can spend a lifetime poking holes in The Bible, and you will never get a rational, satisfactory answer that isn't based on a version of "you are too stupid/not meant to know."

Many religions are less paradoxical, but the monotheistic ones are mostly just an unbelievable shit-show, unless you're especially susceptible to self-delusion.

No apologies to Christians: your religion is a fucking mess. You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments and come away thinking those are the same God. That the loving, caring one who sacrificed his son for people is the same one who allowed Satan to torture his most faithful worshipper on a bet.

Buddhism and most pagan religions make more sense. Buddhism in particular lacks most of the dependency on mysticism and unprovable articles of faith, and is almost more a philosophy than a religion. Buddhists, I can respect. But Christianity is all sorts of dumb.

Actually, taken by itself, the new testament is mostly OK; if you follow only Christ's teachings, and ignore the peyote trips of post-crucifixion books, like, Revelations, it's a solid basis for a society of decent people. But Christ was a liberal socialist, which is why most organized Christianity leans so heavily on the old testament and ignores Christ's teachings of acceptance, communism, and forgiveness.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 4 hours ago

Buddhism as it originally was, was more of a philosophy and way of life.

However, as will all organized religion, Buddhism has morphed in Tibet (free Tibet), India, and other places into mysticism with gods, recurring semi-saviors through "reincarnation", and classist systems and hierarchies. Sad, really. Humans mess everything up for personal gain and control.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 6 points 19 hours ago

Nice .... now I need to learn more about Buddhism and use an ice pick to remove all the information I have about the Christian Bible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Apepollo11@lemmy.world 43 points 21 hours ago (12 children)

Projection?

I had a car that didn't like when the weather was cold and damp. It wasn't too happy about being parked on a slope, either.

Did the car actually have human emotions? No, of course not, but as a human it was both easy and natural to frame and process it that way.

Instead of it simply being "God made made in his own image", the truth is probably that there's more than a little of "man made God in his own image" too.

[–] femtech@midwest.social 19 points 21 hours ago

Yeah, all gods have been made by man.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Balthazar@lemmy.world 24 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Christian theologians believe in the impassibility of God, which means that God does not have emotions as humans do. Then biblical texts where emotions are attributed to God are explained as anthropomorphism - God using human language to communicate his nature and actions.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

How the hell do they explain his "love" then? Seems like they create more problems than they fix with this crap.

[–] Balthazar@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

"Love" in the scriptures is typically a verb, e.g., "God so loved the world..." It describes an action that God does, not a feeling. God's love is his acting in a loving way towards undeserving people.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HootinNHollerin@slrpnk.net 23 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It’s all made up by humans

[–] TokenEffort@sh.itjust.works 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Is there proof of a god like at all? Who tf is this mf. Also god caused your misfortune so asking him to help is counterproductive

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 9 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The solution to that question is easy. Your premise is faulty; there is no such thing as a god or gods. They're man made ideas and there is literally zero evidence to support any god exists. There is loads and loads of evidence that each and every god has been created by humans.

If there is such a thing as a god anyway, it is beyond what can ever measured and it also never interferes with human life or any physical process. In that case, it may as well not exist as it literally doesn't do anything, making the question moot.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

Because main evolved advantageous uses for emotion. We cry, and no longer have to communicate with words that something is wrong. It is advantageous to us to be able to communicate with emotions in more than a vocal manner. Things make more sense when we consider the real reasons they came into being. "We" have probably had these emotions for far longer than we could be considered humans.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

I asked a Christian friend of mine how an all knowing god could be jealous or angry if they were all knowing and the actions of the people they were angry/jealous at were part of his plan.

I never got an answer other than 'mysterious ways'

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 11 points 21 hours ago (12 children)

a better question is 'the problem of evil'

if god is truly omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (perfectly good), then it seems logically impossible for significant evil to exist, as god would both know about it and have the power to prevent it.

this is my favorite as the theistic hand-waving needing to resolve it is incredible from the start.

[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Why would you come to someone's question, not engaging with the question in the slightest, to say "my thing is better"?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago

He wanted a good plot arc leading up to robots not just starting with robots right off the rip

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Giving a serious answer with serious consideration that follows serious rules, is impossible with religion, as all the rules are made up, there's no consistency, and they're all silly.

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 6 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

The answer differs depending on which religion/sect/philosophy you adhere to, but God is usually attributed some sort of emotion, or at least a will, because without it the belief in God can't serve a societal use.

Say you assume a God without emotions. From this it results that nothing we may do or fail to do would impact them, so there are no sins, no divine laws, prayers and rites are useless... So your belief can't be a religion; nor can it be used to control people. There's no physical use to preaching belief in God, and not much of a metaphysical need either since God doesn't care whether you believe in them. "God" becomes a concept like the laws of physics, there's not even much meaning in considering it as a being. There's little difference between an emotionless God and no God at all. So all religions will personify God to some extent.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 6 points 21 hours ago

Maybe we're endowed with Godly emotions.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Well you kind of have the thing reversed.
All gods are created by man in mans image. And gods are generally exactly as selfish childish (narcissistic) and emotional as a 4 year old, because that's the mentality of the people with the delusions that created the gods in the first place. And then the people who think they know what god is and want.

load more comments
view more: next ›