- Sorry, we couldn't find that question.
| If you were the creater of the Universe, would you handle things Differently than the judeo-christian god? |
|
|
|
Asked 180 days ago
by SuperFlyNinjaGuy  United Kingdom |
|
About
Xenophile, Sarcastic, Engineer, Teenager, Irish, Atheist, Free Thinker, Russian language learner, Blogger, SuperFly.
|
9 Points
|
I would write the bible without inconsistencies for one. Get rid of the need for worship. I would be god, I don't need lesser beings to worship me, my ego is big enough thank you.
Less genocide, less war, less famine. Absolute minimal suffering altogether.
My existance will be known to all. Faith isn't something I want in my universe.
Oh, and no religion will be built around me with little people trying to please me, because really that just doesn't work.
That's the idealistic world in my view.
Think i would have added Night Elfs, and Warp technology.
And some Space Marines.
Maybe some more Dwarf Hamster species but that would be pushing it.
I would create a universe where I, as god, didn't exist, and then it would be just like this one.
oh... and I'd design human beings with a bit more common sense.
Common sense is what we have now :P (just like lemmings)
If you say so...
"sense" is certainly not common for humans. I'm saying that I would make it so.
Following each other off a cliff to their deaths, as lemmings do, doesn't seem to have anything to do with sense, does it :PP
The point I was trying to make is that the term "common sense" is misused, one of my pet peeves. I do agree that we humans could be more sensible though.
The misuse or misunderstanding of the term is in assuming that common sense is common. It is in fact not "what we have now."
The definition is "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters," and as such, is indeed not the norm. The term may be misleading in that it includes the word "common" as semantically hypothetical or prescriptive, not descriptive.
I wasn't misusing the term.
You may not have intended to imply I was, but the placement and wording of your comments suggested that.
I agree that good sense or sound judgment would have been a better term, but the we get into the debate what is good and sound, or even sensible for that matter. :P
English is my second language and maybe that is why I tend to take things way to literal, even though I understand and agree what you were trying to say. On the other hand I have seen people use the term "common sense" to support their religion.
Yes. At the heart of it, I think we are agreeing, and it can be an endless cycle of debate on what would be good or sound. My point would have been clearer if I would have used "reason" or "logic" instead of "common sense".
I feel the same way as you do about people using that phrase to support their religion. They are using it to mean "self-evident" or something like that. It's ridiculous.
If you don't need lesser being to worship you, why have them at all?
Why have pets if they don't worship you?
1. Who says that they don't in their own way?
2. Humans didn't create pets the same way God is said to have created humans. Humans may be genetically engineering them, but they didn't simply make them be out of lifelessness (i.e. there was already a form of life that we messed with; we didn't create the form of life, just modified it).
3. If we assume that they DON'T worship you, then get 1000 pets together and let them loose in a park or something, and see how long it takes for them to become violent with each other. (of course, if they DO worship you, the violence will likely just be more organized once it happens.......)
So you are saying the reason people have pets is because the pets worship them in their own way..?
and about point nr 3 what the fuck are you smoking?
No, I'm saying that you DON'T know that they don't. Nothing more than that.
Lets get 1000 bunnies together in a park and see what happens, or 1000 cats, or 1000 hamsters, or 1000 goats etc etc
And why did god make all these animals? They obviously don't worship him or us!
For fun?
Like a big game of Civilization, eh?
Yep!
Differently from an impossible-to-detect God, you mean, who presumably created a universe that is exactly the same as it would be if he didn't exist?
Exactly!
As a non-believer that any deity can truly exist in this universe, I hesitated to answer this question. However, to argue the point, let us assume that there might possibly be any chance that an all-powerful being existed and for some reason or another just so happened to have created all this, as the myth of Judeo Christianity purports...
If I were to start from scratch with the universe, there would be much less suffering and a lot more clarity and definition in what is and is not true. I say that there would be LESS suffering because, without suffering, there can be little ecstasy in pleasure.
I would declare myself and exhibit my power of creation, yet make it clear that, even though I do have the power to do or undo anything, I have the right to refuse any or all requests at will.
With the Judeo Christian god, there is so much ambiguity and so many mistruths and lies being told to gloss over how evil and savage that god in the "old testament" (aka the Torah) is described to be...
Yes, I would handle things differently than the commonly accepted practices of the Judeo Christian god. I would be kind, yet firm in my ways. I would give full freedom of choice to everyone and let them find their own ways of living. I would ensure that the ecosystem remained balanced and make things peaceful by allowing people to inhabit the same land, just create alternate universes that linked together so that the disputes over land could be easily resolved.
There are many things that can be read into this question. However, I still remain firm in my belief that there is no god, the "church" is a bunch of greedy individuals who seek power over their fellow man - both morally and mentally - while extorting money and political ambitions from the worst of them...
Another good post. Well stated and clear. I have a different world view, but bear you no personal animosity. As a practicing Christian, I just have two disputes. I might make some of the changes you suggested, but I believe that he (being God) has access to the kinds of information I don't. We probably can't have conversations with whales about Barth and the Heidelberg Catechism because our ways of knowing things are so totally different. We know that whales are smart and have conversations with each other. In my world view, God has access to information and senses I simply don't have. (BTW/That was not a comment about whale worship)
Given your beliefs, what you have to say about churches is a reasonable conclusion to explain your observations. The only problem is that it's not the truth. Don't get me wrong. Churches have just as many problems as you have observed. We just know that most of us did not come to God or the Church in a desire for power or wealth.
What in the world would "Barth and the Heidelberg Catechism" be? Please explain this enigmatic phrase...
Karl Barth was probably the most influential theologian in the 20th century. Among other things, he is known outside theological circles as the pastor that wrote against the Church having anything to do with the Third Reich. You can find a good introduction at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
The Heidelberg Catechism is the Martin Luther statement of faith and apologetics. It is used to teach what Lutherans believe and why.
BTW/ I suspect that there are alternate universes and we will eventually be able to move between them, just as humans can now fly.
Anyone could do a better job.
Hell YES!
No wasps, hornets, in fact nothing that seems to exist only to torment people.
I would do a lot less smiting too. Obviously I don't have first hand expereince, but I suspect a little smiting here and there is going to have to happen, there will be the odd person who just pisses you off too much to bear, and as a last result you muight have to smite a few to push the others in the direction you want.
There would be no horrible diseases to die from, and people would not suffer from aging and infirmity, death would only be the result of accident or desire by the person to "switch off" after they felt they had lived enough.
Birth rates would be very low of course.
Thats that taste good, feel good, and are fun would not also be harmfull, immoral or illegal either, people would not be ashamed of their bodies or their sexuality.
I am glad you asked this question, I have been waiting nearly two thousand years to speak my mind on this important subject.
I would not update my "Word" (the OT/NT) regularly for thousands of years, then abruptly quit updating it circa 400AD and then tell everybody they just have to believe "on faith" while my message keeps getting more and more distorted as it is translated into more and more languages and as entirely new religions sprout with but loose adherence to my actual words... making up stuff as the years go by. Examples: Islam, Mormonism.
I would keep the updates coming on a regular basis so as not to leave any doubt in people's minds as to whether I exist. If people before Christ had the benefit of regular updates to my Word why shouldn't everyone? I have learned I cannot trust mortal men to keep the ball rolling without any help from me.
BTW... great question!
Cheers. ;)