Just out of curiosity, wondering why anyone would begin with the premise that man is God’s creation, not the other way around?
Are there any reasonable answers other than “personal experience?”
If “God” is not man’s creation, then every human being on the planet would worship that one god, instead of their own version. Take Christianity and Islam. At first they were all the same group, the one dude said god was another way. Each side saw that their own side was the right one. Clearly a paradoxical and contradictory situation and a bad wrap for theism in general.
What is this ‘begin’?
1.) Culture, politics, family, face it, you’re instilled with that belief froma young age.
2.) One of the other things that might cause such a belief, is, in a way, logic. All of us came from our mothers, that’s pretty easy to posit. Our mothers and fathers came from theirs, etc. That being the case, the question of where did the first mother or father come from remians completely open, people then came up with theories regarding this. Some people believe they had a paranormal experience of some sort, some people believe in the big bang theory, either way, when enough people adopt a theory as fact it becomes something in between, devout belief.
3.) Either way, we were unintentionally created, (or evolved from smaller organisms, eukaryotes prokaryotes and all of that shit) or something intentionally created us as we are, or something close to it. Somebody’s got to blame (I mean, believe) something, even the atheists must have some belief as to where we came from…
In my opinion, we “begin” unjustifiably with a lot of other things as external to us rather than a creation from us. Sceptics would not just attack the notion of God but everything in-between. If you apply this hypothesis, you have reason to believe that the phenomenal world is also your creation and not the other way around. Who knows. Perhaps the world is preserved only as long as someone is there to sense it. Close your eyes at your own risk.
We “begin” from that premise because it is the most natural and comfortable way to apply the mind; your reason. Only later does one reject the initial premise because of some other premise which suffers the same defect as the one before. That is, that one can, following Feuerbach, suppose that God is an externalization of what is best in man. That God is a repository of man’s enlarged image… but is this what is evident or what is imagined- created- by him?
In either case, all that I see is a leap of faith and nothing else can be gained, because the human mind can access only surfaces. One cannot say that we are justified to “begin” with the assumption that God is something that exist independently of us, but neither can we know that the opposite is true, or certain- that God is wholly imagined by humans.
So I’ll met these half-way and like a pseudo Dionysious assume a God that exist in some way yet unimagined in human consciousness. Even “God” fails us. It is a word that describes only what is created by us. The Bible is written in the words of man, not in the words of God. The revelation of that which ususally is beyond man cannot be confered, or unfallibly confered by a witness. It is his and his alone- unique to the person, but not because of this referring to a multiplicity of Beings. Allah, God, G-d, Yahweh, Elohim, Zeus, Jupiter… do you notice any similarities between these?
But even if there are some similarities between all gods, that much may reveal a common human condition and not necessarly the character of a Being. He could be an involuntary human concoction. But how can I know that? How can I be certain of that? I can’t without raising to the throne another thing as God- infallible. I have not yet peared into the mind of the mystic, the faithful, the saint, directly as I would a chair. I could study the brain activity of 100 so-called “saints” and declare that 99 can be explained as suffering simple indigestion, not a raport with the Creating Principle, the Ground of all Being. But there can be one who is beyond the explanation. Even then that is pretty convincing, but only about the group in question. How many dead prophets are beyond my scope? How could I know that they too felt indigestion? By a leap of faith. By the assumption that one holds for all invariably.
Because the bible tells me so. 
Because my ego is under control?
Basically if you accept God as real then the idea that man created God makes no sense. It is merely a matter of what you blelieve. If you take the socio-cultural view of God then it is merely a concept, if you take a theistic view of it then we were made by God (to some degree or another).
Seemed pretty stright forward to me.
Yikes. It’s comments like these that keep me up at night.
It should be sufficient evidence enough to ensure God as a man-made construct because it is referred to as a “he”. (God: “Sorry women, no matter how humanity progresses or gives you suffrage or recognizes your girl-power, you will always be the inferior sex because I’ve chosen to represent myself in my holy texts as the male.”)
Celpha Fiael
At the very least, it should be sufficient evidence that God didn’t go to school at Berkeley.
What God should have done is manifested Himself as a half-man, half woman mixture of all the races, so he could represent us as well as Michael Jackson.
Sorry to disturb your sleep, but maybe you are unfamiliar with Christianity. Every Christian believes that the bible is more than a collection of stories. In fact they believe it to be divine revelation about a variety of topics, including the process of making man. Therefore, it is highly appropriate for a Christian to defend their theology by referring to the bible. Maybe you should put your insomnia to good use and have a read of it sometime.
Other than a rant to no-one in particular, this doesn’t make any sense. You claim that God must be a man-made construct because the Israelites and Christians referred to their God as “He”. What else were they supposed to use? It? She? The available alternatives were few, and significantly less appealing than “He” when addressing the creator of the universe. Thus, in the absence of any viable alternative, it would seem that “He” is entirely appropriate and has absolutely no bearing on whether “He” actually exists outside of human thought.
I suggest you think of a more viable argument against the pre-existence of a creator.
Yes I’m well aware, seeing as how I was a devout Christian for quite some time and did just as many scholarly studies of the Bible in that time than how much one would cover in the same time at Seminary, if not more. And it does more than disturb my sleep.
“It” certainly would have ridded Christianity from an extremely suspect set of mind, not to mention the needless and immature oppression of females for several centuries. I’ve bolded what I think is the root of your chauvinism; you’ve fallen right into the trap the authors wished you to be in.
I dunno, your response made me feel even better about mine.
There have been plenty of cultures that have oppressed women without a monotheistic He-God.
I’d say that oppression of women is more of a human condition and less of a religious one.
At the risk of moving too far off topic, I’d theorize that women were oppressed for such a long time across many cultures because of their physical inferiority to men. That physical inferiority translated to mental inferiority when reason came onto the human development scene (and incorrectly so, one of our many blunders as a developing race).
But when is “it” ever a viable option when referring to an entity that can have a personal conversation with you? Even the anthropomorphic aliens on star trek are usually referred to as “he” or “she”. I think you’re just seeing what you want to see, and it doesn’t really support your overall position in any way.
I think it’s you that is displaying preconceived notions about this topic. Just because the bible refers to God as “He” is no evidence at all that God is simply an anthropomorphic wish fulfillment.
Actually, I think you’d be on stronger grounds using this type of argument to critic modern religious liberalism where it seems that God is simply one of our friends and his thoughts are precisely the same as modern human beings. Thus, the closer God acts like a human being, the less likely he would be to actually being God. But, despite his masculine pronoun, the God of the bible is surprising and very unlike me and you in many of his actions. This doesn’t prove that he is actually God of course, but I’m not trying to prove that. I’m trying to explain why your argument is very weak.
Well, I’m surprised my comments served to reinforce your obvious bias on the topic.
Why not refer to God as an “it”, you don’t really think it is a male do you?
I’ll tell you why the Bible doesn’t; because the male was seen by the then incipient intelligence of our species as the dominant sex (based on physical strength, as is mentioned above), and so the writers–obviously male–concluded that God must be a male. Modern day ethics would cringe at such a sexist constative and is right to do so. Yet it is largely ignored and justified with divine definition if brought up, as you’ve demonstrated. My point is that you have no good reason at all to refer to God as a male nor does anyone; unless you are morally defective and laughably ignorant writer in the first century.
I am amused to see how you will defend that this is not so when there are glaringly revealing passages within your holy scripture such as the creation account of Eve who was cloned from a mere rib of the man; or Exodus 20:17 which blatantly and unapologetically lists the wife of man as a possession, right along side of his ox, donkey, and slave; or Saint Paul’s adamant repression of women in church on several occasions, disallowing them to speak or represent themselves in any way in the church. These misogynistic absolutes would have to have been endorsed by God early on in the infancy of our species and then suddenly and contradictorily abandoned later on (we certainly do not in this time period think of women as possessions or refuse to let them speak or treat them as inferior). If this is your conviction then you now have a whole slew of apologetics to deliver in defense of your unchanging and all-loving God. The other option, which is also the more reasonable one, is to excuse God from being so sexist because he never wrote them to begin with. There are too many fallacies, and all are all to obvious as to where they came from.
I never said God was an anthropomorphic wish fulfillment, just that he is presented anthropomorphically as a male for the sole reason that the actual writers of the Bible (who were not God) were sexist and misogynistic, although it certainly was unavoidable for that time period. The arrestingly obvious male chauvinism that plagues this time period is very telling of the sociological, psychological, and political opinions of the authors.
No I don’t even find that interesting at this point, I don’t think it has much relevance to what we’re talking about anyway. If you’re trying to show that my argument is weak then going on tangents is not the way to do it.
You’re the one asserting God, the most powerful being in all of the universe, as a male. And I’m the biased one, you say?
No, I don’t really consider God to be male. But why refer to a personal entity with superior intellect that us as “it”. “He” seems entirely appropriate. But, hey, if you want to go with “it” there’s no one stopping you. My point is that “He” is entirely understandable and therefore no evidence at all that God is a human construct.
I think I’ve adequately explained why using “He” is appropriate. There is a lack of suitable alternatives. I’m not quite sure why you find that so difficult to understand.
Is your suggestion of “it” the only alternative you can come up with? So the sum total of your argument for the idea that God is a human construct would be that people refer to God as “He” rather than “it”? Is that what you’re saying?
I don’t agree that Eve was “cloned” from Adam. Cloning from a male will always produce a male due to the presence of the Y chromosome. However, I agree with your argument that Old Testament writings place more value on men than women, but then so did most other ancient cultures. I disagree that Paul’s writings defend the repression of women. I’ve presented my understanding of Paul’s comments on the role of women elsewhere if you have any interest.
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewto … c&start=75
No. They could have been tolerated in the OT and then addressed directly in the new covenant, just like temple sacrifice and obeying the Law.
I agree that God is unchanging. But where did you get the idea that he was “all-loving”?
Actually I agree with most of what you said here. But it does not support your original contention that describing God as masculine is proof that God is a man-made construct.
Your argument is weak simply because you have failed to support it. Your original idea was that using a masculine pronoun is somehow proof that God is a human construct. As I pointed out there are very few other options. You have responded by suggesting that maybe they could have used “it”. If that’s not a weak defense of an argument then I don’t know what is.
It’s like saying Ucc has no fashion sense because he’s wearing purple pants today. Then Ucc responds that he only has two pairs of pants, one purple and the other green. And as he’s wearing a purple shirt today, he thought the purple pants would be the best choice. So, are you still going to harass him for his choice of wardrobe? That seems a little harsh.
First of all, I’m not asserting anything, I’m simply attacking your original argument. And I didn’t say that God is, or was, male. I said that there are not many choices other than a masculine pronoun. The fact that you fail to see this tells me that you might be a little biased on this topic.
The most obvious Christian answer, it would seem to me, is that God created man “in his image,” according to scripture…
So it would make sense, based on Christian doctrine, to refer to God as “he.”
You seem to be completely oblivious to the possibility of calling God a “she”. Is that not a suitable alternative? I find it difficult to understand, yes, unless you are a sexist, which I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt concerning.
There is no difference between a non-existent male or a non-existent female or a non-existent it to me.
What I’m saying is based upon your beliefs, I’m meeting you in your own territory in an attempt to show you how men have helped create what you know as God. The first belief that I assume you hold is that the Bible is the Word of God, I took this to be the case from your “the bible told me so” remark. Being the Word of God, you believe it to be the truth, and that it represents truth in full without fallacies. If you take that to be so, then by observing that the authors of the books therein refer to God as a “he”, then you must conclude that God is somewhat sexist, as he has made sure his disciples refer to the male gender when addressing him. You’ve said it yourself that the early writers viewed men as the dominant and more significant gender. Well because these men were the vessels of the very ink of God, what they write is what God writes. So God obviously (at least at that time) thought of women as the inferior gender. This is NOT, in our morally evolved and more understanding generation, a prevalent belief, hence the feminist movement, women’s (or “womyn’s” as they offer) rights, women’s suffrage, the list could go on. So God, if he penned the Bible, was morally inferior to our current moral system. I doubt you would say that of God, now would you?
Interesting choice of verbs. Why would God wait to do that, I wonder? Seems rather insensitive–to say the least–to permit the hostile repression of a vital and necessary gender of his Creation for so long. Why couldn’t he have addressed it sooner? I’m sure the wives and daughters of that time who were handed out to guests like refreshments and forced to “humble themselves” before them (I say them, because there were often more than one male guest) would have appreciated that from God. What if you were a woman back in that day, you’re telling me the best reason you could give yourself for the stones being unmitigatedly thrown at you is “Well God tolerates this now but it’s safe to assume he won’t later.” Your response seems to me completely grounded in the comfort you experience now, which as we’ve seen, is not due to God but an increasing sense of morality derived from increased intelligence as a species.
This explains a lot. By all-loving, I was trying to allude to the equality he would give both man and woman but I guess you might not think that way at all.
If I said “proof”, I apologize as that is misleading; there is no such thing as proof. What I should have said is evidence that is blatantly telling at worst and extremely suspect at best.
You really are missing the point entirely, the fact that you refer to God as a male is indicative of a pro-masculine influence. God wouldn’t be male or female as you’ve agreed, so it is safe to say this biased influence didn’t come from him, unless he was misogynistic himself.
Far from it, it’s more like Ucci wearing Levi brand pants and then saying that God made them. I’d bet you’d criticize him too, and I’m sure he’d think that was harsh.
I am astounded at your ignorance, you’ve just shamelessly exposed your biasness with those last two sentences! Yet you still think I’m the biased one. So what would I be biased towards exactly?
Yes but we’ve already run back into the problem at “in his image”. Who do you think made it that way and not “in her image” or “in its image.”? If you were a egotistical and sexist male writing, wouldn’t you refer to God as a man? Likewise it would be “her” for a sexist woman. The problem is that the Christian doctrine is obviously rooted in Bronze Age morals, certainly not the kind of morals we have today, which drives the source of these incipient morals in question.
Well, if one begins with the premise that the Bible is true, then it makes sense to say “his” image. Man was the first creation. Man was created in God’s image. Therefore, it’s most likely God according to the Bible shares man’s qualities, including the “he” pronoun.
Does this make God sexist? Well, a lot of the other things in the Bible certainly do, but if one takes every word of the Bible literally, then it makes sense to call God he. It also makes sense to call God sexist.