God on trial

God on trial

youtube.com/watch?v=wG0PDuUd … r_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=nEAkNuWf … re=related

I don’t know if this has been posted before, anyways I was quite struck by it…

So god isn’t good he is just on your side or not on your side, this is the verdict. :-k

What can we draw from this? That the bible is not the word of god or god is somehow misrepresented in there, or indeed that god is not good.

How about; god cannot intervene? If he could he would stop evil and suffering, no.
…we know he doesn’t do that.

If an interventionist god exists he is not good.

What if he chooses not to be a puppeteer? Then he chooses not to do good.

Are his arms to large to embrace us? Lets imagine that the universe is the body of god or otherwise his expression. His causality is universal, we never see instances of a more particular kind of interaction, hence he has no way to interact with individual instances and occurrences.

As the designing intellect [lets assume], once the design is manifest it cannot be changed. …the creation would be perfect etc.

It seams to me that a good god cannot have the ability to intervene.

So where does that put us and how different is he to what we have assumed before?

What if god is not the creator?

…if the universe is cyclic this would surely put god outside of it [causally]?

Lets assume otherwise there is a point/place between the cycles of each universe [probably necessary to avoid infinity paradoxes], where god may redesign it.

Then he either does a bad job or is limited [omniscient, omnipotent?]. …or is not a good god.



His speech is one that any Christian and Jew with any integrity would listen to and realize how truly ridiculous their beliefs are. They describe a God that is brutal, merciless, and yet somehow simultaneously they believe he is forgiving and good. Something doesn’t follow, something doesn’t fit.

Why would 21st century CE 7 billion human population-global networked culture mirror 8th century BCE texts that are based on pre-10th century BCE ontilogical understandings?

God was not the fuzzy friend of peace and love he is today, in early history to the Hebrew peoples of the early formations.
God was their nuclear bomb. They were safe because they had their god and their god could fuck you up.

Nevertheless there remains questions as to why he would create races only to pick his favourite to go mess the others up. If he is not good then there’s no reason why he picked the Hebrews its just his pick of the day - so to speak. By that reasoning he may well have picked the Nazi’s later on, maybe he liked their pretty flags for a while ~ who knows?.. if god is ridiculous?!

I am more inclined to believe that the bible [etc,] was a primitive attempt to understand god by correlating him with their cultural customs and history. …which themselves were as flawed as any other of that day.

I don’t see why we should not re-invent god and religion [if understanding him even needs that].

I don’t think the bible was so much to understand god as it was to figure out their place in the world. I would say that the concept of a god ought to have been secondary to that and that it got in the way when it became the focal point (god that is).

Who was the favorite to go mess the others up?

But god ordained their place in the world, to them he said it was the right thing to do, to expel tribes and kill people etc. perhaps it was wrong to justify their actions as gods will specifically, maybe god was/is on their side in a more philosophical manner, and is on all of our sides in the same way.

You could say that god is on the side of the USA now. If we go beyond specific cultures then perhaps god moves to whomever is more advanced morally spiritually etc or are otherwise best for the world.

In that sense god may well have been on the Hebrews side for a time and maybe the Persians before them, the Egyptians before them.

Equally was he on the Buddhists side in the east?

For a time on the muslims side?

Is there some manner of plan? Or does he not get involved. It seams wiser not to, but who knows what course humanity would have taken without god [or the idea of].



Yep. They just happened to equal those two things as one.

What if anything makes the Hebrew version of god better than the Persian [Zoroastrian]. Were there further philosophical advances? …perhaps that they were meek little shepherds where the Persians had the greatest empire on earth at the time [well I think it was bigger than china].

For me the Persians were the first multiculturists, something we have only just got up to in the late 20th C.

If there is a wisdom stream here perhaps its that humility was more necessary, even at the expense of the Persians greater cultural expansiveness. The later being naturally arrived at as cultures embrace peace.

That depends on how you mean that question.
For one thing, the Persians’ Zoroastrianism was based on the Medianite Mazdaism religion.
The Persians don’t show up until around 550 BCE, the Medianites were their predecessors effectively and were there somewhere around the 900 BCE range starting out in around the Northwestern belt of present day Iran.
But prior to them further North Western is the Nesians, or Hittites, around by 1800 BCE and owned as much as the map shows below around 1400 to 1300 BCE.

Which would have inundated the would be Medianite Iranian tribes of the Northwestern region around the Zagros mountains.

And sandwiched them against the Assyrians on the opposing side.
And actually, it would have been as though the to be Medianites, that were Iranian tribes at the time, would have been like a washboard with which the cloth of the Nesians and the Assyrians were constantly washing over the top of.

The Nesians were what I would rather say is the first multicultural people as they literally cataloged everything they seem to have encountered and took in pieces of everything into their culture; not to mention that much of their empire was constantly shifting ownership so the citizens kept separate cultural practices with a united cultural tone (over a thousand deities, many repetitions of the same deities with different spins).

The Assyrians had Enki and the Hittites had A’as.
The Nesians (Hittites) got A’as from Enki; Assyria being older.

This is the god of wisdom, and eventually creation.
The difference being that the Nesians focused more on Nerik than A’as, whereas Assyria favored more interest in Enki.
But Enki reached, not only the Nesians, but also the Canaanites, and Hurrians.

Specifically of note, Canaanites.
This is where the majority of people that appear to have made up the Hebrew peoples of the Highlands early on were from; largely Canaan.
For instance, the Hebrew language begins in anthropology with artifacts of slow conversions over time of Canaanite language into a separate and eventually distinctly Hebrew square form text.

So the question of what, if anything, makes the Hebrew’s take better is somewhat like asking what makes Catholicism any better than LDS (mormon).

The Hebrews are 1300 BCE (-ish) arrivals, and at that stage…pretty unformed.
However, “Persia”, is around 600 BCE (well…formed).

Neither are all that much the ancestor of the other, so much as siblings of related parents.

OK…um…got some time?

There are so many advances in philosophy in the Bronze Age Near East…it’s all pretty amazing stuff, but wow.
That depends what you want to compare against.

Are you asking just the Hebrews compared to the Persians?

that’s some interesting info, thanks!

Well I was relating to all of this based on a spate of documentaries which said that the Hebrews weren’t monotheistic until after they met the Persians [5th-6th C bc I do believe].

So the question is; why were the Hebrews favoured [if so], when it would seam the Persians were the more culturally and philosophically advanced/sophisticated at least in universal terms?

I suppose the questions remains irrespective of how the history went.

How the hell was islam an advancement later in the 6th C AD? …or in particular;

If god is doing the teaching, did he want us to be increasingly strict and single-minded etc as history [denominations and division of the churches] would suggest.

…and yet now it seams he wants us all to be multicultural and more liberal ~ as like the Persians?!!!

Judaism is actually polymorphic monotheism; like Hinduism, but with god names rather than images as well (due to rules).
The Hebrew peoples were of monotheistic format between the 10th c and 8th c BCE.

I’m not quite sure on this ‘got it from the Persians’ theory that you have bumped into.
Yes, the Persians had influence, but the Hebrew peoples had already reduced their practices down by quite a bit.
I’m quite certain that the return to Judah after Persia helped form the new political structure now absent of tribe clans, and I’m quite sure they bounced some things off of Persian influences…they were theologically related after all.
And we probably only obtained an organized Judaism because of the Persians showing, by being, the Hebrews how a highly organized monotheistic class is conducted.
The Hebrews had quit a few changes at this time; definately.

I don’t think there’s anything pointing to their monotheism lacking prior to Persia, however.
Instead, it appears a bit earlier as far as I can tell; back when Assyria was still around.
I would say, however, that the Judah-ism of Judaism probably kicked off here as the kingdom of Israel was not the favor of Persia, only the kingdom of Judah was attended seemingly.

Well what I ‘bumped into’ was a recent documentary where a jewish lady described how when the jewish lands had been reduced to a single city, there was a massive impetus for the different deities and practices to be reduced and formed into one ~ in order to reduce in-fighting etc.

On the other hand this occurred prior to them being carried off by the Babylonians and later returned by the Persians after they had conquered Babylon. So I don’t know if the entire phase was the process of ‘monotheising’, or if it had mostly occurred prior to the Persian influence.

Ah, that…
Read this:
Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East, Vol 7) - K. van der Toorn

In a nutshell, yes.
This is far earlier than the kingdom (using the term so lightly) of a Hebrew peoples.

Sure but what was the earlier ‘kingdom’ [Canaan, the duel kingdoms of Israel? ~ there appears to have been a northern and southern kingdom prior to the Assyrian conquest] and what was the nature of that culture; pagan?

Thanks for the link

Here’s my hand drawn outline of commonly considered outlines for the conditions from what we know and what we can gauge.

I have contention with the “United kingdom of Israel” part as we haven’t any physical evidence that suggest there was such a thing at the shown timeline.

In direct question to what was before that “united” time period, or at least the time period where a more unified belief system developed, then we have Akkadians and Sumerians, with the former taking over the latter.
Jerusalem is mentioned in the Ebla tablets from 2250 BCE as being under Akkadian control.
Prior to this we have city states, but from there it goes forward and we eventually get our Canaan and Hatti lands.
You can get a general run down (though not very cleanly or well organized) from this wiki article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of … Bronze_Age

Thanks for the image. :slight_smile:

Ok now lets look more at the philosophy - if I may;

What advances over the Persians did the Hebrews make? Or was it simply the case that the west [greeks and romans esp,] rejected the Persians.

This is a strange area for me because I’d think of the philosophy going from heathen to abrahamic, from e.g. family feuds to loving thy neighbour [though not literally lol]. And yet as the links on the op suggests, the bible is actually far less liberal.

It is almost as if a vague summation was acquired from which our general philosophical notions derive, or is it not vague at all, but such new ways of thinking are the specific result of the bible’s journey? [what we think after reading it and presumably the torah prior to Christ].