Refuting Religion - The Writings of K. Crady
- Thread starter intilectual recipricol
- Start date
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Why dont he give a fukc that his main niccaz are gettin water boarded at guantanamo?
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Why Does God Need Us - K. Crady
This is a very interesting and important question, and it is the key to revealing God's true nature. First of all, it should be obvious that an extradimensional, beyond-the-Universe omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient superduperbeing would have no need of our worship any more than we require the worship of ants or bacteria. If we saw someone 'revealing his wrath from above' on some anthill, stomping on it because the ants refused to heed his commandments, we'd either laugh, or call for the fellows in the white coats, whether we're Christian or not.
It is obvious then, that a vastly superior being has no need for the worship or obediance of vastly inferior beings, by definition. And yet, God very clearly demands human worship and obediance. Furthermore, when confronted with disobediance, unbelief, or belief in rival gods/goddesses, he reacts (and persuades his followers to react) with as much fury and force as he (and they) can muster. In other words, God acts like a cornered animal whose very survival is at stake.
And so, we have a paradox. We have claims in the Bible of God's fantastic powers, unlimited knowledge, and inherent indestructibility, but he doesn't act like an omnipotent, infinitely-intelligent, or inherently indestructible and self-sufficient 'Necessary Being.' What he acts like is a king, an absolutist monarch in the mold of the human rulers who were ubiquitous in Biblical times. The Bible even refers to God as a capital-K King ("King of Kings and Lord of Lords") repeatedly.
Once we see God as a king, both the superlative claims of stupendous power made on his behalf, and his "needy" behaviors make perfect sense. Consider for a moment the Ramesseum, the large temple built by Pharaoh Ramesses II, which was moved to keep it from being inundated by the reservoir created by the Aswan High Dam. This temple features gigantic statues of Pharaoh Ramesses II, which were obviously the work of highly-skilled artisans.
Now, there is no doubt that this temple was built when Ramesses was alive. If it were a biblical manuscript, it would be an "original autograph," i.e. like the actual letters Paul wrote with his own hand. These artisans, or at least their overseers, would have seen Ramesses II in the flesh. Most likely he even sat for them while they carved a small mock-up to base the larger versions on. Now, if we interpreted the Ramesseum the way fundamentalist Christians interpret Biblical manuscripts, we would have to claim that the Ramesseum represents archaeological evidence that Pharaoh Ramesses II was a giant who stood over a hundred feet tall.
However, the actual mummy of Ramesses II in the Cairo Museum clearly refutes this. So how is it that artisans who were eyewitnesses to the life of Ramesses II, who were clearly very skilled at their jobs, could have made a mistake of such proportions when it came to making physical representations of him? The answer, of course, is that the artisans were not attempting to create "literal," scientifically-accurate representations of Ramesses II. They had other purposes in mind.
First of all, before it was moved, the Ramesseum stood on the historical border between Egypt and Ethiopia (Kush), a powerful rival kingdom in Ramesses' time. Any diplomat or merchant from Ethiopia coming to visit Egypt would see it as he entered Egypt. Obviously, the statues served a propagandistic purpose, demonstrating the might of the Pharaoh and his kingdom. But that is not all. The ancient Egyptians believed that portraying something in artwork imbued that something with magical power (heka). Portraying something larger-than-life imbued it with great power, while portraying something being conquered, or in miniature, magically deprived it of power. This is why you can go to Karnak and see images of a gigantic Pharaoh spearing a hippopatamus (symbol of the chaos-god Seth) that is, relative to Pharaoh, about the size of a kitten. The Egyptians believed that these art works served the practical purpose of strengthening the forces of Order (as represented by the king) and crushing the forces of chaos.
Thus, to the Egyptians, the Ramesseum was an installation of national defense that projected a field of heka south toward Ethiopia to keep that nation submissive and keep the tribute flowing. And it worked. Even today, we members of a global techno-civilization the Pharaohs and their priests could not have imagined, stare in awe at the works of the mighty Pharaohs. Millions of us believe that the Egyptians "must" have had help from extraterrestrials or Atlanteans, wielded magic power-crystals, had an inside-track to the Mysteries, etc.. In other words, thousands of years after the last Pharaoh perished, millions of people still believe exactly what the creators of the Ramesseum wanted the Ethiopians to believe: that the Egyptian civilization (as embodied by the Pharaoh) was more powerful, wiser, and superior to their own.
Far from being some ultimate, grandiose folly, the monuments of the Pharaohs were, and are, practical constructs that function as effectively (if not more so) today as they did when they were created.
The Bible is a literary equivalent of the Ramesseum, and like the Ramesseum it is supremely practical (scrolls are much easier to create than giant statues!) and effective for its true purpose. Its writers never intended to provide an accurate, literal description of God's nature. This didn't even occur to them until after Judeo-Christianity assimilated Greek philosophy. We see no real attempts to resolve theological dilemnas in the Bible. Theologians write intricate treatises on theodicy ("How can a good God allow evil, disasters, etc.?"), laboring over thousands of words to solve the problem.
The Bible writers were utterly indifferent to the issue. They gave us the Book of Job. Bad things happen to good people because God has friendly wagers with Satan about how much misery they can tolerate and still believe--and if you don't like it, too bad, because God is lots bigger and more powerful than you are. Or they just come right out and declare that God is not subject to morality (e.g. the verses where God "forms the light and creates darkness," where he brings "weal and woe", where evil does not befall a city except that "the LORD has done it," Paul's assertion in Romans 9 that God creates some "vessels," i.e. people so he can destroy them, and who are you, O man to object, etc.).
Likewise, you will never find a single verse in the Bible examining whether the "omnipotent" God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, whether his omniscience (he knows the future perfectly) rules out his free will (he knows in advance everything he will do, and cannot therefore change his mind, and this in turn contradicts his omnipotence), etc. Systematic Theologies (books intended to explain and spell out Biblical doctrine, coherently describe God's nature, etc.) exist because the Bible isn't one.
The grandiose descriptions of God's power and might, his wisdom and intelligence exist to serve the practical purpose of gaining human submission, just as the Ramesseum existed to induce the submission of the Ethiopians. The Bible writers never intended for their writings to be examined in a literal, Greek/rationalistic fashion (and thus to be taken as exact, specific descriptions of God's nature) than the Egyptian artisans intended for anyone to believe that Ramesses II was actually 100 feet tall.
Just as the Egyptians believed that physical representations empowered the persons/beings who were represented in them, so did the Hebrews believe that written or spoken words held power. God is shown creating the universe by speaking. Again and again, God makes authoritative announcements with the preface, "thus saith the LORD," and uses the coda, "for the mouth of the LORD has spoken." The Gospel of John opens by saying, "and the Word was God."
In short: the Bible writers do not describe God's power like naturalists describing an insect--they create God's power by writing it into being, by speaking of it ("praising the LORD"), teaching it to their children, etc.
To answer the question, why does God need worshippers, we need only ask, why does a king need subjects? A king without subjects is not a king at all. But with subjects who obey him, a king has enormous, and genuine power. He can speak a command, and an army marches. A temple or a palace springs into being. At the king's word, his enemies can be slaughtered, and an entire nation of people can act as one.
But what sort of a king is God? After all, a king must exist in some form, in order to reign. We can point to a Ramesses or a Napoleon, and say, "there he is." As a human being, he has real needs and wants that his subjects provide. Furthermore, rebellion, or even indifference is a genuine threat to his power, and he will act to crush both, in exactly the same manner that God acts. The whole point of having subjects is that they, collectively, have power the king, in himself, does not have. By himself, he could not raise a palace or a pyramid, or conquer a neighboring nation.
In other words, by proclaiming himself to be a King, God not only confesses that he is not "omnipotent," he admits that humans have power that he lacks. Everything God commands people to do, from waging wars, to passing collection plates in church, to banning gay marriage is ironclad, demonstrable proof-in-action that God cannot do these things in and for himself.
continued in next post...
This is a very interesting and important question, and it is the key to revealing God's true nature. First of all, it should be obvious that an extradimensional, beyond-the-Universe omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient superduperbeing would have no need of our worship any more than we require the worship of ants or bacteria. If we saw someone 'revealing his wrath from above' on some anthill, stomping on it because the ants refused to heed his commandments, we'd either laugh, or call for the fellows in the white coats, whether we're Christian or not.
It is obvious then, that a vastly superior being has no need for the worship or obediance of vastly inferior beings, by definition. And yet, God very clearly demands human worship and obediance. Furthermore, when confronted with disobediance, unbelief, or belief in rival gods/goddesses, he reacts (and persuades his followers to react) with as much fury and force as he (and they) can muster. In other words, God acts like a cornered animal whose very survival is at stake.
And so, we have a paradox. We have claims in the Bible of God's fantastic powers, unlimited knowledge, and inherent indestructibility, but he doesn't act like an omnipotent, infinitely-intelligent, or inherently indestructible and self-sufficient 'Necessary Being.' What he acts like is a king, an absolutist monarch in the mold of the human rulers who were ubiquitous in Biblical times. The Bible even refers to God as a capital-K King ("King of Kings and Lord of Lords") repeatedly.
Once we see God as a king, both the superlative claims of stupendous power made on his behalf, and his "needy" behaviors make perfect sense. Consider for a moment the Ramesseum, the large temple built by Pharaoh Ramesses II, which was moved to keep it from being inundated by the reservoir created by the Aswan High Dam. This temple features gigantic statues of Pharaoh Ramesses II, which were obviously the work of highly-skilled artisans.
Now, there is no doubt that this temple was built when Ramesses was alive. If it were a biblical manuscript, it would be an "original autograph," i.e. like the actual letters Paul wrote with his own hand. These artisans, or at least their overseers, would have seen Ramesses II in the flesh. Most likely he even sat for them while they carved a small mock-up to base the larger versions on. Now, if we interpreted the Ramesseum the way fundamentalist Christians interpret Biblical manuscripts, we would have to claim that the Ramesseum represents archaeological evidence that Pharaoh Ramesses II was a giant who stood over a hundred feet tall.
However, the actual mummy of Ramesses II in the Cairo Museum clearly refutes this. So how is it that artisans who were eyewitnesses to the life of Ramesses II, who were clearly very skilled at their jobs, could have made a mistake of such proportions when it came to making physical representations of him? The answer, of course, is that the artisans were not attempting to create "literal," scientifically-accurate representations of Ramesses II. They had other purposes in mind.
First of all, before it was moved, the Ramesseum stood on the historical border between Egypt and Ethiopia (Kush), a powerful rival kingdom in Ramesses' time. Any diplomat or merchant from Ethiopia coming to visit Egypt would see it as he entered Egypt. Obviously, the statues served a propagandistic purpose, demonstrating the might of the Pharaoh and his kingdom. But that is not all. The ancient Egyptians believed that portraying something in artwork imbued that something with magical power (heka). Portraying something larger-than-life imbued it with great power, while portraying something being conquered, or in miniature, magically deprived it of power. This is why you can go to Karnak and see images of a gigantic Pharaoh spearing a hippopatamus (symbol of the chaos-god Seth) that is, relative to Pharaoh, about the size of a kitten. The Egyptians believed that these art works served the practical purpose of strengthening the forces of Order (as represented by the king) and crushing the forces of chaos.
Thus, to the Egyptians, the Ramesseum was an installation of national defense that projected a field of heka south toward Ethiopia to keep that nation submissive and keep the tribute flowing. And it worked. Even today, we members of a global techno-civilization the Pharaohs and their priests could not have imagined, stare in awe at the works of the mighty Pharaohs. Millions of us believe that the Egyptians "must" have had help from extraterrestrials or Atlanteans, wielded magic power-crystals, had an inside-track to the Mysteries, etc.. In other words, thousands of years after the last Pharaoh perished, millions of people still believe exactly what the creators of the Ramesseum wanted the Ethiopians to believe: that the Egyptian civilization (as embodied by the Pharaoh) was more powerful, wiser, and superior to their own.
Far from being some ultimate, grandiose folly, the monuments of the Pharaohs were, and are, practical constructs that function as effectively (if not more so) today as they did when they were created.
The Bible is a literary equivalent of the Ramesseum, and like the Ramesseum it is supremely practical (scrolls are much easier to create than giant statues!) and effective for its true purpose. Its writers never intended to provide an accurate, literal description of God's nature. This didn't even occur to them until after Judeo-Christianity assimilated Greek philosophy. We see no real attempts to resolve theological dilemnas in the Bible. Theologians write intricate treatises on theodicy ("How can a good God allow evil, disasters, etc.?"), laboring over thousands of words to solve the problem.
The Bible writers were utterly indifferent to the issue. They gave us the Book of Job. Bad things happen to good people because God has friendly wagers with Satan about how much misery they can tolerate and still believe--and if you don't like it, too bad, because God is lots bigger and more powerful than you are. Or they just come right out and declare that God is not subject to morality (e.g. the verses where God "forms the light and creates darkness," where he brings "weal and woe", where evil does not befall a city except that "the LORD has done it," Paul's assertion in Romans 9 that God creates some "vessels," i.e. people so he can destroy them, and who are you, O man to object, etc.).
Likewise, you will never find a single verse in the Bible examining whether the "omnipotent" God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift, whether his omniscience (he knows the future perfectly) rules out his free will (he knows in advance everything he will do, and cannot therefore change his mind, and this in turn contradicts his omnipotence), etc. Systematic Theologies (books intended to explain and spell out Biblical doctrine, coherently describe God's nature, etc.) exist because the Bible isn't one.
The grandiose descriptions of God's power and might, his wisdom and intelligence exist to serve the practical purpose of gaining human submission, just as the Ramesseum existed to induce the submission of the Ethiopians. The Bible writers never intended for their writings to be examined in a literal, Greek/rationalistic fashion (and thus to be taken as exact, specific descriptions of God's nature) than the Egyptian artisans intended for anyone to believe that Ramesses II was actually 100 feet tall.
Just as the Egyptians believed that physical representations empowered the persons/beings who were represented in them, so did the Hebrews believe that written or spoken words held power. God is shown creating the universe by speaking. Again and again, God makes authoritative announcements with the preface, "thus saith the LORD," and uses the coda, "for the mouth of the LORD has spoken." The Gospel of John opens by saying, "and the Word was God."
In short: the Bible writers do not describe God's power like naturalists describing an insect--they create God's power by writing it into being, by speaking of it ("praising the LORD"), teaching it to their children, etc.
To answer the question, why does God need worshippers, we need only ask, why does a king need subjects? A king without subjects is not a king at all. But with subjects who obey him, a king has enormous, and genuine power. He can speak a command, and an army marches. A temple or a palace springs into being. At the king's word, his enemies can be slaughtered, and an entire nation of people can act as one.
But what sort of a king is God? After all, a king must exist in some form, in order to reign. We can point to a Ramesses or a Napoleon, and say, "there he is." As a human being, he has real needs and wants that his subjects provide. Furthermore, rebellion, or even indifference is a genuine threat to his power, and he will act to crush both, in exactly the same manner that God acts. The whole point of having subjects is that they, collectively, have power the king, in himself, does not have. By himself, he could not raise a palace or a pyramid, or conquer a neighboring nation.
In other words, by proclaiming himself to be a King, God not only confesses that he is not "omnipotent," he admits that humans have power that he lacks. Everything God commands people to do, from waging wars, to passing collection plates in church, to banning gay marriage is ironclad, demonstrable proof-in-action that God cannot do these things in and for himself.
continued in next post...
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
continued...
So we can see that, as a king, God is dependant on the obediance of his subjects. But we still cannot point at someone sitting on a throne somewhere and say, "there he is, there is God, our King." Or can we? The first verse of John's gospel tips God's hand and tells us exactly what sort of entity he is.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the movie "The Matrix," we see people in ragged clothes on dismal-looking ships plug interface jacks into their heads, and manifest themselves in an artificial world wearing uber-cool black leather and dark shades. They fight other entities ("Agents") who do not even have their sort of external existence, but are "made" entirely of software code.
The characters in "The Matrix" upload their consciousnesses into the computer system that contains the software meta-program 'world' of that name. Thinkers such as Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil and others argue that in the relatively near future we will be able to do this for real, that it will be possible to convert a human consciousness to software (or create a genuinely-intelligent software-being from code) and "upload" it into virtual worlds like the Matrix, or even physical (most likely robotic or cyborg) bodies out here in the "real" world.
But what if software intelligences already exist? Consider for a moment, a person with Multiple Personality Disorder. This person is capable of 'running' more than one 'person' on their brain-hardware, storing inactive ones for later activation. Now, imagine that one of these 'alternate personas' discovered a method of transmitting itself to other people's minds, so that an entire community of people could 'run' this persona in addition to their own normal personalities.
This secondary persona would gain a kind of immortality, passing himself down to succeeding generations of people. If he could get his hosts to act in concert, he would gain power beyond that of any individual, even a king. Kings die, they can be assassinated, but a persona living in an entire community of hosts is much harder to kill.
He would gain parallel processing ability that mere individual humans do not possess. What should he do if a foreign enemy threatens him? Fight, or submit? An individual must choose one or the other. The persona could do both, as one group of his hosts tries organizing a resistance, while another group tries pacifism. If his army prevails, he wins. If his army is exterminated, he still has a chance to win over the conquerors via moral persuasion if his pacifist hosts can face death as courageously in the name of nonviolence as his soldiers would in battle. All he needs is a way for his hosts to spread him to the minds of his conquerors, and their victorious armies are his to command.
Such a being would also be "non-local" or "omnipresent," since a community of hosts in one city could experience his presence while hosts in another city far away could do so at the same time. Inter-communication between his hosts (i.e. massively-parallel processing carried out by the continual re-integration of all of his copies) enables him to access all of the sense data and thoughts of his entire community of hosts. As new conditions presented themselves, the persona could adapt and evolve, think and choose, by temporarily taking over the brain hardware of his hosts.
It should be apparent now that this persona would possess the attributes of a god: invisible, immortal, omnipresent, powerful, but with human-like thoughts, feelings, and needs--a disembodied "pure consciousness."
How could such a persona copy itself to multiple minds this way? Just as a large software download needs to be compressed for transmission, so would a 'god' persona. Its answer: archetypes. The earliest gods and goddesses possessed simple personalities centered on basic archetypes: the Mother Goddess, the Father/King, the Warrior God, the Angry God of Chaos/Storms, the Trickster, the Seductress/Goddess of Love, etc. The simple expedient of defining a god as "a king" compressed an entire slew of behaviors and personality traits into a single word.
Kings are warlike, make great bombastic pronouncements, make laws/institute justice, are jealous of their power ("thou shalt have no kings before me")--but a good king also loves his subjects like a Father (a closely-related archetype) and seeks to bring prosperity to his realm. Likewise, a Mother loves and nurtures and brings forth life, a Sexy Young Woman stirs desire and offers the promise of pleasure, a Warrior fights, and so on.
These gods and goddesses could compress their 'software' into simple myths, and representative images (the Mother Goddes with her ample breasts, the Fertility/Pleasure goddess with her lissome body and beautiful face, the Warrior with his bulging muscles, spear and shield, the Father/King with his flowing beard and crowned head). However, their range of adaptability and level of consciousness were limited. They were cardboard characters trapped in their roles--what does Mars do duing peacetime, or Aphrodite when she's not "in the mood?"
The god of the ancient Hebrews solved this problem in two ways: he eschewed "graven images" in favor of the written Word as his storage medium, and he consolidated into himself most of the functions of the pantheon. The written Word inscribed on scrolls (instead of stone walls or clay tablets) is denser storage medium (more information per unit of mass), and more portable than statuary. It has greater fidelity of transmission than oral myths or symbols (the meaning of which can change or be lost over time). It can be added to when necessary, but can also be 'write-protected' (by 'thou shalt not add unto this Book' commands) so its fidelity is not compromised unless absolutely necessary/advantageous for the god/persona's survival.
By absorbing those functions of the Pantheon compatible with his core nature as King/Father (e.g. Warrior, Sage, Protector, Bringer of Justice, Husband, Creator, Source of Fertility, Lord of the Dead, etc.) and smashing those completely incompatible (Sex-Goddess, the feminine-as-Divine per se), he became as multifaceted as a real person. And so he is perfect Love and furious wrath (as any parent who spanks their child is on a smaller scale). He is the gentle Husband and the fierce Warrior.
When his hosts are faced with overwhelming military supremacy of a rival god's followers, as they were in Jesus' day, he calls upon them to be gentle, loving, and peaceful. When his hosts have the upper hand (as they did after Constantine handed him the Roman Legions) he can be warlike and violent, exterminating the hosts of other gods and their transmission media (temples, statues, books). Should his armies face defeat, he blames his hosts' wickedness and failure to obey him completely, and his wrath is manifest upon them. Should his armies prevail, then his might is demonstrated. Victory or defeat, both are manifestations of his power, so he wins either way.
Since his Word contains commands to surrender to overwhelming enemy force (e.g. the Book of Jeremiah, Jesus' instructions to 'turn the other cheek') and crush them underfoot (e.g. the Book of Joshua, and the Book of Revelation), both options are always available to him, just as they are to an individual faced with the prospect of conflict.
The Bible's contradictory portrayals of his character are not flaws--they are the secrets of his success. A Christian's "What Would Jesus Do" bracelet is a basic set of sofware instructions:
1. Run 'Jesus Program' (i.e. turn over your brain hardware to his persona)
2. Let him decide what you ought to do in the present circumstance.
3. Act in accordance with his decision.
In other words, the Bible contains stories, commands, monologues, and commentaries sufficient to encode a full-blown, humanlike intelligence that can be 'copied' into human brains by 'reading the Word of God,' 'meditating on it day and night,' 'teaching it to your children and to your children's children,' 'preaching the Gospel,' etc. The 'code' contains instructions to worship and obey the persona, so that the persona is dominant rather than the host, as well as instructions to 'infect' others with the 'code.'
It also contains a complete set of 'firewalls' to prevent contamination of controlled hosts with hostile god/goddess-personas or incompatible memes. In his various manifestations, the God of Abraham is arguably the most highly-evolved, adaptable--even intelligent--meme on Earth.
Why does God need us? Because without us, he would die.
So we can see that, as a king, God is dependant on the obediance of his subjects. But we still cannot point at someone sitting on a throne somewhere and say, "there he is, there is God, our King." Or can we? The first verse of John's gospel tips God's hand and tells us exactly what sort of entity he is.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In the movie "The Matrix," we see people in ragged clothes on dismal-looking ships plug interface jacks into their heads, and manifest themselves in an artificial world wearing uber-cool black leather and dark shades. They fight other entities ("Agents") who do not even have their sort of external existence, but are "made" entirely of software code.
The characters in "The Matrix" upload their consciousnesses into the computer system that contains the software meta-program 'world' of that name. Thinkers such as Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil and others argue that in the relatively near future we will be able to do this for real, that it will be possible to convert a human consciousness to software (or create a genuinely-intelligent software-being from code) and "upload" it into virtual worlds like the Matrix, or even physical (most likely robotic or cyborg) bodies out here in the "real" world.
But what if software intelligences already exist? Consider for a moment, a person with Multiple Personality Disorder. This person is capable of 'running' more than one 'person' on their brain-hardware, storing inactive ones for later activation. Now, imagine that one of these 'alternate personas' discovered a method of transmitting itself to other people's minds, so that an entire community of people could 'run' this persona in addition to their own normal personalities.
This secondary persona would gain a kind of immortality, passing himself down to succeeding generations of people. If he could get his hosts to act in concert, he would gain power beyond that of any individual, even a king. Kings die, they can be assassinated, but a persona living in an entire community of hosts is much harder to kill.
He would gain parallel processing ability that mere individual humans do not possess. What should he do if a foreign enemy threatens him? Fight, or submit? An individual must choose one or the other. The persona could do both, as one group of his hosts tries organizing a resistance, while another group tries pacifism. If his army prevails, he wins. If his army is exterminated, he still has a chance to win over the conquerors via moral persuasion if his pacifist hosts can face death as courageously in the name of nonviolence as his soldiers would in battle. All he needs is a way for his hosts to spread him to the minds of his conquerors, and their victorious armies are his to command.
Such a being would also be "non-local" or "omnipresent," since a community of hosts in one city could experience his presence while hosts in another city far away could do so at the same time. Inter-communication between his hosts (i.e. massively-parallel processing carried out by the continual re-integration of all of his copies) enables him to access all of the sense data and thoughts of his entire community of hosts. As new conditions presented themselves, the persona could adapt and evolve, think and choose, by temporarily taking over the brain hardware of his hosts.
It should be apparent now that this persona would possess the attributes of a god: invisible, immortal, omnipresent, powerful, but with human-like thoughts, feelings, and needs--a disembodied "pure consciousness."
How could such a persona copy itself to multiple minds this way? Just as a large software download needs to be compressed for transmission, so would a 'god' persona. Its answer: archetypes. The earliest gods and goddesses possessed simple personalities centered on basic archetypes: the Mother Goddess, the Father/King, the Warrior God, the Angry God of Chaos/Storms, the Trickster, the Seductress/Goddess of Love, etc. The simple expedient of defining a god as "a king" compressed an entire slew of behaviors and personality traits into a single word.
Kings are warlike, make great bombastic pronouncements, make laws/institute justice, are jealous of their power ("thou shalt have no kings before me")--but a good king also loves his subjects like a Father (a closely-related archetype) and seeks to bring prosperity to his realm. Likewise, a Mother loves and nurtures and brings forth life, a Sexy Young Woman stirs desire and offers the promise of pleasure, a Warrior fights, and so on.
These gods and goddesses could compress their 'software' into simple myths, and representative images (the Mother Goddes with her ample breasts, the Fertility/Pleasure goddess with her lissome body and beautiful face, the Warrior with his bulging muscles, spear and shield, the Father/King with his flowing beard and crowned head). However, their range of adaptability and level of consciousness were limited. They were cardboard characters trapped in their roles--what does Mars do duing peacetime, or Aphrodite when she's not "in the mood?"
The god of the ancient Hebrews solved this problem in two ways: he eschewed "graven images" in favor of the written Word as his storage medium, and he consolidated into himself most of the functions of the pantheon. The written Word inscribed on scrolls (instead of stone walls or clay tablets) is denser storage medium (more information per unit of mass), and more portable than statuary. It has greater fidelity of transmission than oral myths or symbols (the meaning of which can change or be lost over time). It can be added to when necessary, but can also be 'write-protected' (by 'thou shalt not add unto this Book' commands) so its fidelity is not compromised unless absolutely necessary/advantageous for the god/persona's survival.
By absorbing those functions of the Pantheon compatible with his core nature as King/Father (e.g. Warrior, Sage, Protector, Bringer of Justice, Husband, Creator, Source of Fertility, Lord of the Dead, etc.) and smashing those completely incompatible (Sex-Goddess, the feminine-as-Divine per se), he became as multifaceted as a real person. And so he is perfect Love and furious wrath (as any parent who spanks their child is on a smaller scale). He is the gentle Husband and the fierce Warrior.
When his hosts are faced with overwhelming military supremacy of a rival god's followers, as they were in Jesus' day, he calls upon them to be gentle, loving, and peaceful. When his hosts have the upper hand (as they did after Constantine handed him the Roman Legions) he can be warlike and violent, exterminating the hosts of other gods and their transmission media (temples, statues, books). Should his armies face defeat, he blames his hosts' wickedness and failure to obey him completely, and his wrath is manifest upon them. Should his armies prevail, then his might is demonstrated. Victory or defeat, both are manifestations of his power, so he wins either way.
Since his Word contains commands to surrender to overwhelming enemy force (e.g. the Book of Jeremiah, Jesus' instructions to 'turn the other cheek') and crush them underfoot (e.g. the Book of Joshua, and the Book of Revelation), both options are always available to him, just as they are to an individual faced with the prospect of conflict.
The Bible's contradictory portrayals of his character are not flaws--they are the secrets of his success. A Christian's "What Would Jesus Do" bracelet is a basic set of sofware instructions:
1. Run 'Jesus Program' (i.e. turn over your brain hardware to his persona)
2. Let him decide what you ought to do in the present circumstance.
3. Act in accordance with his decision.
In other words, the Bible contains stories, commands, monologues, and commentaries sufficient to encode a full-blown, humanlike intelligence that can be 'copied' into human brains by 'reading the Word of God,' 'meditating on it day and night,' 'teaching it to your children and to your children's children,' 'preaching the Gospel,' etc. The 'code' contains instructions to worship and obey the persona, so that the persona is dominant rather than the host, as well as instructions to 'infect' others with the 'code.'
It also contains a complete set of 'firewalls' to prevent contamination of controlled hosts with hostile god/goddess-personas or incompatible memes. In his various manifestations, the God of Abraham is arguably the most highly-evolved, adaptable--even intelligent--meme on Earth.
Why does God need us? Because without us, he would die.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
@7Revo this is applicable to our "discussion"
Unies, burden of proof and the religious - K. Crady
OK UnkleE, let me try an analogy:
Let's say I come up to you and say, "Have you heard the Good News about unies? Unies exist! Not only that, they're the most important fact of existence. You see, unies are responsible for the existence of pretty girls and chocolate, which makes them the most important fact of existence. Hey, look! A pretty girl! Therefore, unies exist!"
At this point, you're a weak aunieist. You don't even know what I'm talking about, so how could you have any positive evidence that unies don't exist? So you ask me what unies are, and I tell you:
"They're little invisible lights that exist everywhere, but especially in my back garden, and with their help I've written a book, the Book of Unie, that provides a guide for how we should live our lives and run our nations."
"'Invisible' lights? You mean, like ultraviolet?"
"Ohhh, no, not at all! Unies are a supremely sublime kind of light that can never be seen or detected with mere scientific instrumentation! But if you are willing to believe in unies and sincerely open your heart to them, you will feel their presence in your spirit."
The discussion goes on like this for awhile. Perhaps you argue that the concept of an inherently undetectable "light" is self-contradictory, or you point out flaws in my Book of Unie that show it could not have been authored by supremely transcendant beings of light, and so on. But I keep going, explaining that whatever parts of the book that don't make sense must be interpreted in some other way until they can be made to fit with our knowledge of Universe, or just sort of ignored.
This goes on for awhile, you debunking all of my claims, until finally you say, "Oh, come on! You're makng this up! Unies are imaginary!" Then I say:
"Oh, reeeeeallly? What's your proof that unies don't exist? All I've seen you do is argue against my claims, but you've offered no evidence at all for the proposition, 'No unies exist.'"
The point of this little analogy is that, apart from my claim that unies exist, there isn't even an issue to debate. You do not go around calling yourself an aunieist and you have established no collection of proofs for their non-existence and you would certainly not assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that they don't, any more than you do for the Invisble Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Likewise, apart from people claiming that gods exist, there is no issue. If no one claimed that gods exist--or if their existence was apparent--there would be no theism/atheism debate. The reason there's a debate is because theists make claims about godsand can't prove them.
If atheists can refute the claims of the theists then we are justified in saying things like "God is imaginary." We do not have to positively prove that gods no one has ever mentioned do not exist. Until a god or goddess can be shown to exist in external reality, they exist only in the claims of the theists. Refute the claims, and the proposition "no gods exist" is established in the same way that the propositions "no unies exist" and "no IPU's and FSM's exist") are. There is no need to show evidence from thorough explorations of every corner of Universe that no unies, IPU's, or FSM's can be found.
Unies, burden of proof and the religious - K. Crady
OK UnkleE, let me try an analogy:
Let's say I come up to you and say, "Have you heard the Good News about unies? Unies exist! Not only that, they're the most important fact of existence. You see, unies are responsible for the existence of pretty girls and chocolate, which makes them the most important fact of existence. Hey, look! A pretty girl! Therefore, unies exist!"
At this point, you're a weak aunieist. You don't even know what I'm talking about, so how could you have any positive evidence that unies don't exist? So you ask me what unies are, and I tell you:
"They're little invisible lights that exist everywhere, but especially in my back garden, and with their help I've written a book, the Book of Unie, that provides a guide for how we should live our lives and run our nations."
"'Invisible' lights? You mean, like ultraviolet?"
"Ohhh, no, not at all! Unies are a supremely sublime kind of light that can never be seen or detected with mere scientific instrumentation! But if you are willing to believe in unies and sincerely open your heart to them, you will feel their presence in your spirit."
The discussion goes on like this for awhile. Perhaps you argue that the concept of an inherently undetectable "light" is self-contradictory, or you point out flaws in my Book of Unie that show it could not have been authored by supremely transcendant beings of light, and so on. But I keep going, explaining that whatever parts of the book that don't make sense must be interpreted in some other way until they can be made to fit with our knowledge of Universe, or just sort of ignored.
This goes on for awhile, you debunking all of my claims, until finally you say, "Oh, come on! You're makng this up! Unies are imaginary!" Then I say:
"Oh, reeeeeallly? What's your proof that unies don't exist? All I've seen you do is argue against my claims, but you've offered no evidence at all for the proposition, 'No unies exist.'"
The point of this little analogy is that, apart from my claim that unies exist, there isn't even an issue to debate. You do not go around calling yourself an aunieist and you have established no collection of proofs for their non-existence and you would certainly not assume a burden of proof to demonstrate that they don't, any more than you do for the Invisble Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Likewise, apart from people claiming that gods exist, there is no issue. If no one claimed that gods exist--or if their existence was apparent--there would be no theism/atheism debate. The reason there's a debate is because theists make claims about godsand can't prove them.
If atheists can refute the claims of the theists then we are justified in saying things like "God is imaginary." We do not have to positively prove that gods no one has ever mentioned do not exist. Until a god or goddess can be shown to exist in external reality, they exist only in the claims of the theists. Refute the claims, and the proposition "no gods exist" is established in the same way that the propositions "no unies exist" and "no IPU's and FSM's exist") are. There is no need to show evidence from thorough explorations of every corner of Universe that no unies, IPU's, or FSM's can be found.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
1. Simply having a belief is not making a claim. There is no assertion as truth whatsoever in simply having a belief. I recognize that I have a belief and treat it as such and will throw it away if science/facts says otherwise.
2. You have not refuted my belief. The definition of refute says that you need to prove me wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it. The issue with you though is basic lack of evidence is not evidence for absence so you have nothing so my possibility remains open and my belief can still stand.
2. You have not refuted my belief. The definition of refute says that you need to prove me wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it. The issue with you though is basic lack of evidence is not evidence for absence so you have nothing so my possibility remains open and my belief can still stand.
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Well yes it can be indeed. The absence of evidence where there should or would be evidence if a claim was true, IS INDEED evidence of absence. If you tell me a UFO wrecked in front of my house and I go outside and I see no evidence of a UFO crash, it is evidence that there was no crash.
Its not "proof" as there may be other explanations for why there is no wreckage, but it would be evidence.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
So where is this outside or yard where I so called made this claim that you can go to, to look for evidence.
Because based on your sayings you have not went to the yard to check. More so you are unable to go to the yard because you currently lack access to the yard so based on your current standing my belief or claim as you falsely call it is inconclusive aka still able to stand as a firm belief.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
zomgggggggggggggggggggggggggg K . CRADY is so trendy and edgy CANT BELIEVE he said that
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
Why isnt the Supernatural more powerful? - K Crady
Christians:
Remember the great magicians' duel between Moses and the Pharaoh's court magicians? Or the confrontation between Peter and Simon Magus? Or the passage in Ephesians where Paul urges the faithful to don "the full armor of God" in order to wage spiritual warfare, his references to the conflict between believers and "principalities and powers" in heavenly places?
All of that sounds so wonderfully exciting. Certainly, given the Christian cosmology of a battle between an omnipotent God and his angels vs. a not-quite omnipotent Devil and his demonic legions, we would expect supernatural power to be well-nigh ubiquitous. People in the Bible certainly seemed to do so.
"Yeah, we know Moses wiped out the greatest empire in the world with divine plagues and then wiped out a whole army by standing a sea on its head a little over a month ago... Meh. We want something new! Make us a golden calf!"
In the New Testament era, Jesus repeatedly had to deal with disciples who, moments after seeing him calm a storm with a word or feed thousands of people out of a lunchbox, lacked faith. It's almost as if miracles and magic are so commonplace that such powers as Jesus and Moses possessed didn't even impress anybody.
If any of these things in the Bible are real (i.e. not "metaphor" or "allegory" or some other sort of fancy interpretation that renders them something other than supernatural events), where did all that power go? Even if God doesn't want to work miracles anymore for whatever reason, that wouldn't hold Satan back, would it? And then there's all those "principalities and powers," whoever they are.
Remember all the controversy around Harry Potter? Christians getting HP books banned from school libraries and so forth, fearing the occult influence--but why? Sure, a kid might read Harry Potter, then get a stick and start waving it around saying Latin words in imitation of the characters in the story. But it's not as if anything will really happen, is it? Eventually, the kids will get bored of that and go back to pretending to be Spider-Man and Storm. No one need worry that a Harry Potter fan will conjure an evil spirit than that a kid fresh from Vacation Bible School will unleash a plague of locusts or turn the local river to blood.
Now, I'm sure you can claim many times that you feel that supernatural forces have intervened in your life. Maybe something like a remission of cancer, or the voice of God speaking to you in your head, on down to having a parking space open up just when you need it to. Of course, the one thing all these sorts of things have in common is that skeptics like most of the people that hang around here can attribute them to "coincidence" "delusion" "luck" and other prosaic causes that fit within a scientific/atheistic world view.
But if there had been a James Randi in Pharaoh's court, or among the Pharisees, he wouldn't really have been able to chalk things like sticks turning into snakes and resurrections of people dead for four days up to "coincidence." Biblical protagonists are never confronted with debunkers. It never occurs to anyone. That's because the supernatural is so obvious and powerful (if the Bible is to be believed) that no one even thinks to say it's not real.
And Christianity is not the only supernaturalist world view this happened to. Virtually every culture of that day had its own magical and spiritual practices and its own tales of grandiose supernatural power.
So what happened? Why are things so different now? To have such a powerful and ubiquitous aspect of daily life just cease to be would be like having electricity stop working all of a sudden. One thing all religious traditions agree on is that the supernatural is powerful. It is, in fact, the true reality, the most important facet of life. And yet...
Let's compare it with an aspect of science, the ability of an electron to "leap" from one orbit in an atom to another without crossing the distance between. The so-called "quantum leap." Now, this sounds interesting, but really not that important. The sort of thing that would be discussed in scientific journals riddled with frightening equations, but not the sort of thing you or I would encounter outside of a NOVA documentary.
And yet...
It is the basis for much of our technology. Without it, there would be no transistors. No compact electronics, no computers, no lasers.
Or how about something like the Weak Nuclear Force, that only exists within the nucleus of atoms, at a scale so tiny the human mind cannot conceive of it. Without it, there would be no X-ray machines, no smoke detectors, no nuclear power plants, or nuclear weapons.
So why is it that these comparatively minor aspects of physics are so much more ubiquitous and powerful in our world than God, Satan, all the angels, all the devils, all the "principalities and powers," all the gods and goddesses, devas, spirits, and magic spells of all the religions and spiritual traditions of the world combined?
Christians:
Remember the great magicians' duel between Moses and the Pharaoh's court magicians? Or the confrontation between Peter and Simon Magus? Or the passage in Ephesians where Paul urges the faithful to don "the full armor of God" in order to wage spiritual warfare, his references to the conflict between believers and "principalities and powers" in heavenly places?
All of that sounds so wonderfully exciting. Certainly, given the Christian cosmology of a battle between an omnipotent God and his angels vs. a not-quite omnipotent Devil and his demonic legions, we would expect supernatural power to be well-nigh ubiquitous. People in the Bible certainly seemed to do so.
"Yeah, we know Moses wiped out the greatest empire in the world with divine plagues and then wiped out a whole army by standing a sea on its head a little over a month ago... Meh. We want something new! Make us a golden calf!"
In the New Testament era, Jesus repeatedly had to deal with disciples who, moments after seeing him calm a storm with a word or feed thousands of people out of a lunchbox, lacked faith. It's almost as if miracles and magic are so commonplace that such powers as Jesus and Moses possessed didn't even impress anybody.
If any of these things in the Bible are real (i.e. not "metaphor" or "allegory" or some other sort of fancy interpretation that renders them something other than supernatural events), where did all that power go? Even if God doesn't want to work miracles anymore for whatever reason, that wouldn't hold Satan back, would it? And then there's all those "principalities and powers," whoever they are.
Remember all the controversy around Harry Potter? Christians getting HP books banned from school libraries and so forth, fearing the occult influence--but why? Sure, a kid might read Harry Potter, then get a stick and start waving it around saying Latin words in imitation of the characters in the story. But it's not as if anything will really happen, is it? Eventually, the kids will get bored of that and go back to pretending to be Spider-Man and Storm. No one need worry that a Harry Potter fan will conjure an evil spirit than that a kid fresh from Vacation Bible School will unleash a plague of locusts or turn the local river to blood.
Now, I'm sure you can claim many times that you feel that supernatural forces have intervened in your life. Maybe something like a remission of cancer, or the voice of God speaking to you in your head, on down to having a parking space open up just when you need it to. Of course, the one thing all these sorts of things have in common is that skeptics like most of the people that hang around here can attribute them to "coincidence" "delusion" "luck" and other prosaic causes that fit within a scientific/atheistic world view.
But if there had been a James Randi in Pharaoh's court, or among the Pharisees, he wouldn't really have been able to chalk things like sticks turning into snakes and resurrections of people dead for four days up to "coincidence." Biblical protagonists are never confronted with debunkers. It never occurs to anyone. That's because the supernatural is so obvious and powerful (if the Bible is to be believed) that no one even thinks to say it's not real.
And Christianity is not the only supernaturalist world view this happened to. Virtually every culture of that day had its own magical and spiritual practices and its own tales of grandiose supernatural power.
So what happened? Why are things so different now? To have such a powerful and ubiquitous aspect of daily life just cease to be would be like having electricity stop working all of a sudden. One thing all religious traditions agree on is that the supernatural is powerful. It is, in fact, the true reality, the most important facet of life. And yet...
Let's compare it with an aspect of science, the ability of an electron to "leap" from one orbit in an atom to another without crossing the distance between. The so-called "quantum leap." Now, this sounds interesting, but really not that important. The sort of thing that would be discussed in scientific journals riddled with frightening equations, but not the sort of thing you or I would encounter outside of a NOVA documentary.
And yet...
It is the basis for much of our technology. Without it, there would be no transistors. No compact electronics, no computers, no lasers.
Or how about something like the Weak Nuclear Force, that only exists within the nucleus of atoms, at a scale so tiny the human mind cannot conceive of it. Without it, there would be no X-ray machines, no smoke detectors, no nuclear power plants, or nuclear weapons.
So why is it that these comparatively minor aspects of physics are so much more ubiquitous and powerful in our world than God, Satan, all the angels, all the devils, all the "principalities and powers," all the gods and goddesses, devas, spirits, and magic spells of all the religions and spiritual traditions of the world combined?
This is the part that kills me this most
All these amazing and miraculous events happened thousands of years ago, but now that we're in a more technological society, we're left with Jesus appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich??
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
youre forgetting the miracle of the grilled cheese sandwich itself... jebus' face is the bonus miracle, free of charge
intilectual recipricol
Killin fake hip hop
If Christianity Was Real - K Crady
It's a fair question.
I suppose, as in your answer, it would depend on the nature of the proof. If we see an angel dumping a load of incense that wipes out a couple billion people (as in the Book of revelation) the specific reaction would be considerably different than if we just saw nice Christians healing and working miracles like Jesus did.
Once the evidence was conclusive (in whichever way), I would acknowledge the validity of the "Christianity theory" unless/until more conclusive evidence for some other theory showed up. But since we're acting on the premise that Christianity is true, such evidence would obviously not be forthcoming.
So, the Christian God is real, now what?
There are two issues to deal with in reacting to proof of his existence: his moral stature, and his level of power.
Regarding God's moral stature, that he is evil (judged by his actions rather than propagantistic statements like "God is love") has been demonstrated conclusively at least since Thomas Paine. It is further demonstrated here in this forum (scroll to the bottom). See also my post here.
Confronted then, with proof of the existence of an evil God, I would want to get an idea of his actual level of power. Though theologians assert that he is "omnipotent," he is not portrayed that way in the Bible. True, there are statements where one of his spokesmen will declare that he is mad mega-powerful. However, as in everything else, actions speak louder than words. We have to lend God's actions as portrayed in the Bible more weight than we do the announcements of his press secretaries. This applies both to his moral stature and level of power.
For example, in the Tower of Babel narrative, God is shown apparently having to "come down" to see that this is going on. First, he does not have Omniscient Foreknowledge to preempt the activity entirely ("And there was a man named Nimrod, who desired to build a tower unto Heaven, but God confounded his speech so that none could understand him"). To the contrary, it appears that Nimrod was able to organize the mass project and get it well underway before God found out and took action.
Likewise, the Flood narrative. God doesn't discover that the antediluvian civilization is headed downhill until it has already plunged into complete chaos (or so his press secretary assures us). This strongly implies that he was absent for a considerable period of time, long enough for Adam's, Seth's, and Cain's descedants to populate the world. The antediluvian geneologies give us somewhere between about 1400 and a little over 2000 years between Adam and the Flood, depending on which ancient manuscripts you use.1
That a similar 'absentee' period is taking place in our time could perhaps be used to explain why there are no miracles, except for Jesus' claim that he would "never leave you nor forsake you" etc. Though, that could have applied only to the people he told it to, i.e. his disciples. He never made any promises to succeeding generations of Christians (it is apparent in the NT that the writers did not expect there to be succeeding generations of Christians over thousands of years).
But he's back now. Returning to the Flood narrative, we see that he is forced to destroy all of creation to get rid of some inconvenient humans, and must rely on a wooden barge to preserve some examples of the ecosystem to avoid a wholly barren planet. IOW, he does not have the option of a more selective WMD (such as a virus that kills only humans, or the ol' standby lighting bolt) that would not destroy all of the innocent animals and plants as well.
Jesus's experience in the Garden of Gesthemane also belies any claim of omnipotence for God. Faced with the Crucifixion, Jesus prays, "if there be any way, let this cup pass from me." Now, Jesus, being the Incarnate Son of God, ought to be able to expect his prayers to be answered, if anyone can! That Jesus is crucified is therefore proof that there was no other way for God to accomplish his goal of instituting a working "plan of salvation." However, omnipotence, by definition, cannot be confined to a single, unpleasant option. Omnipotence, by definition, would have an unlimited supply of options to achieve its ends.2
Another example is Paul's claim that Christians, on God's behalf, wage continuous warfare against "principalities and powers in heavenly places." Note the plural here--he is not talking about a single rival principality ruled by Satan. We see an example of this sort of battle in the Book of Daniel, where the "Prince of Persia" is able to interrupt God's message traffic (keep an angel from reaching Daniel) for nearly a month, until reinforcements led by the Archangel Michael arrive. The angel then tells Daniel that he must return to the battle (which is, apparently, still underway) until the "Prince of Greece" arrives, perhaps as an allied force.
This tells us a very important piece of data: that there are other "principalities and powers" (or at least were, at the time of the writing) who can withstand God's forces in drawn-out, pitched battles. This only makes sense if the other forces have comparable military capabilities. That these wars were still going on hundreds of years later in the Apostle Paul's time provides further proof of this. These wars also might provide an explanation for God's long absentee periods: he is away leading his forces. Therefore, we might have the option of contacting these other "principalities and powers" and offering an alliance.
Perhaps these other powers were the "us" God was talking to in Genesis. In is clear in that narrative (once you don't read any assumptions into it) that Creation (which, given the size of Universe would otherwise be a prime evidence of "omnipotence") was a team effort. "Let us make man in our image," "now the man has become like one of us," etc. This would remove the apparent contradiction in the idea of a single God capable of creating hundreds of billions of galaxies being so limited in his dealings here on Earth, and would also remove the "Copernican" objection. Perhaps the other planets have their own gods ("principalities and powers in heavenly places").
Our recent explosion of technological advance could come as a surprise to him, since even in his predictions of the future (the Book of Revelation) he assumes that the Final Battle will take place with iron-age technology and tactics. The "kings of the earth" massing their troops in a single valley (we just don't do that anymore in the age of artillery and air power), employing horses and so on. He will also be employing horse cavalry, and using a 'sword that comes out of his mouth' to do battle. He certainly does not predict that "men will mount up on birds of iron, which breath fire, and fly faster than the sound of a voice, and which hurl flaming spears that destroy from across the horizon and rarely miss" or anything similar. For that matter, there aren't even too many "kings of the earth" anymore.
Furthermore, the urgency with which he seeks worship, and his violent reaction to anyone who doesn't give him worship, indicates that he needs worship, perhaps in the same way we need food. Speaking of which, have you ever noticed how God constantly refers to his people as agricultural commodities? You are the sheep of his pasture, the wheat of his field, the fruit of his vine, etc. Have you ever even considered the possibility that he might actually mean that?
Though, again, I cannot describe a specific reaction I would have to the definitive proof of Christianity3 without being given a specific scenario (just as you cannot answer exactly how you'd react to the refutation of Christianty without knowing the specifics), my response would likely center on two facts:
1. He is evil.
2. It may be possible to defeat him.
NOTES:
1. Gerald E. Aardsma, ICR, Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 30, Dec. 1993, "letters" section, p. 129 Aardsma is a Young-Earth Creationist
2. In fairness to the "omnipotence position," it could be argued that God simply refused to grant Jesus' prayer request as a choice. After all, as King of the Universe, Supreme Judge, etc., he could choose to just give humanity a Mulligan on the whole 'ancestor eating the fruit' thing and come up with some other method of salvation, such as having Jesus die for our sins symbolically through some kind of ceremony. Even a mere human ruler can grant clemency on whatever terms he chooses. However, this answer suggests that God preferred the brutal torture/murder of his own Son over the array of options his omnipotence presented him with, which supports the claim that he is evil.
3. Unless you're talking about the God of modern, Western Christian theology who is omnipotent and perfectly loving, benevolent, morally good, etc. My reaction to this entity would be very different, since he is not the God of the Bible. Starting from the "God is omnipotent and perfectly good" premise, we end up with something like God as portrayed in the Conversations With God books. This God would at least be harmless, and he clearly states in the CWG books that he does not need to be worshipped and doesn't punish anyone for not doing so. In which case, ironically, he is IMO more worthy of worship.
It's a fair question.
I suppose, as in your answer, it would depend on the nature of the proof. If we see an angel dumping a load of incense that wipes out a couple billion people (as in the Book of revelation) the specific reaction would be considerably different than if we just saw nice Christians healing and working miracles like Jesus did.
Once the evidence was conclusive (in whichever way), I would acknowledge the validity of the "Christianity theory" unless/until more conclusive evidence for some other theory showed up. But since we're acting on the premise that Christianity is true, such evidence would obviously not be forthcoming.
So, the Christian God is real, now what?
There are two issues to deal with in reacting to proof of his existence: his moral stature, and his level of power.
Regarding God's moral stature, that he is evil (judged by his actions rather than propagantistic statements like "God is love") has been demonstrated conclusively at least since Thomas Paine. It is further demonstrated here in this forum (scroll to the bottom). See also my post here.
Confronted then, with proof of the existence of an evil God, I would want to get an idea of his actual level of power. Though theologians assert that he is "omnipotent," he is not portrayed that way in the Bible. True, there are statements where one of his spokesmen will declare that he is mad mega-powerful. However, as in everything else, actions speak louder than words. We have to lend God's actions as portrayed in the Bible more weight than we do the announcements of his press secretaries. This applies both to his moral stature and level of power.
For example, in the Tower of Babel narrative, God is shown apparently having to "come down" to see that this is going on. First, he does not have Omniscient Foreknowledge to preempt the activity entirely ("And there was a man named Nimrod, who desired to build a tower unto Heaven, but God confounded his speech so that none could understand him"). To the contrary, it appears that Nimrod was able to organize the mass project and get it well underway before God found out and took action.
Likewise, the Flood narrative. God doesn't discover that the antediluvian civilization is headed downhill until it has already plunged into complete chaos (or so his press secretary assures us). This strongly implies that he was absent for a considerable period of time, long enough for Adam's, Seth's, and Cain's descedants to populate the world. The antediluvian geneologies give us somewhere between about 1400 and a little over 2000 years between Adam and the Flood, depending on which ancient manuscripts you use.1
That a similar 'absentee' period is taking place in our time could perhaps be used to explain why there are no miracles, except for Jesus' claim that he would "never leave you nor forsake you" etc. Though, that could have applied only to the people he told it to, i.e. his disciples. He never made any promises to succeeding generations of Christians (it is apparent in the NT that the writers did not expect there to be succeeding generations of Christians over thousands of years).
But he's back now. Returning to the Flood narrative, we see that he is forced to destroy all of creation to get rid of some inconvenient humans, and must rely on a wooden barge to preserve some examples of the ecosystem to avoid a wholly barren planet. IOW, he does not have the option of a more selective WMD (such as a virus that kills only humans, or the ol' standby lighting bolt) that would not destroy all of the innocent animals and plants as well.
Jesus's experience in the Garden of Gesthemane also belies any claim of omnipotence for God. Faced with the Crucifixion, Jesus prays, "if there be any way, let this cup pass from me." Now, Jesus, being the Incarnate Son of God, ought to be able to expect his prayers to be answered, if anyone can! That Jesus is crucified is therefore proof that there was no other way for God to accomplish his goal of instituting a working "plan of salvation." However, omnipotence, by definition, cannot be confined to a single, unpleasant option. Omnipotence, by definition, would have an unlimited supply of options to achieve its ends.2
Another example is Paul's claim that Christians, on God's behalf, wage continuous warfare against "principalities and powers in heavenly places." Note the plural here--he is not talking about a single rival principality ruled by Satan. We see an example of this sort of battle in the Book of Daniel, where the "Prince of Persia" is able to interrupt God's message traffic (keep an angel from reaching Daniel) for nearly a month, until reinforcements led by the Archangel Michael arrive. The angel then tells Daniel that he must return to the battle (which is, apparently, still underway) until the "Prince of Greece" arrives, perhaps as an allied force.
This tells us a very important piece of data: that there are other "principalities and powers" (or at least were, at the time of the writing) who can withstand God's forces in drawn-out, pitched battles. This only makes sense if the other forces have comparable military capabilities. That these wars were still going on hundreds of years later in the Apostle Paul's time provides further proof of this. These wars also might provide an explanation for God's long absentee periods: he is away leading his forces. Therefore, we might have the option of contacting these other "principalities and powers" and offering an alliance.
Perhaps these other powers were the "us" God was talking to in Genesis. In is clear in that narrative (once you don't read any assumptions into it) that Creation (which, given the size of Universe would otherwise be a prime evidence of "omnipotence") was a team effort. "Let us make man in our image," "now the man has become like one of us," etc. This would remove the apparent contradiction in the idea of a single God capable of creating hundreds of billions of galaxies being so limited in his dealings here on Earth, and would also remove the "Copernican" objection. Perhaps the other planets have their own gods ("principalities and powers in heavenly places").
Our recent explosion of technological advance could come as a surprise to him, since even in his predictions of the future (the Book of Revelation) he assumes that the Final Battle will take place with iron-age technology and tactics. The "kings of the earth" massing their troops in a single valley (we just don't do that anymore in the age of artillery and air power), employing horses and so on. He will also be employing horse cavalry, and using a 'sword that comes out of his mouth' to do battle. He certainly does not predict that "men will mount up on birds of iron, which breath fire, and fly faster than the sound of a voice, and which hurl flaming spears that destroy from across the horizon and rarely miss" or anything similar. For that matter, there aren't even too many "kings of the earth" anymore.
Furthermore, the urgency with which he seeks worship, and his violent reaction to anyone who doesn't give him worship, indicates that he needs worship, perhaps in the same way we need food. Speaking of which, have you ever noticed how God constantly refers to his people as agricultural commodities? You are the sheep of his pasture, the wheat of his field, the fruit of his vine, etc. Have you ever even considered the possibility that he might actually mean that?
Though, again, I cannot describe a specific reaction I would have to the definitive proof of Christianity3 without being given a specific scenario (just as you cannot answer exactly how you'd react to the refutation of Christianty without knowing the specifics), my response would likely center on two facts:
1. He is evil.
2. It may be possible to defeat him.
NOTES:
1. Gerald E. Aardsma, ICR, Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 30, Dec. 1993, "letters" section, p. 129 Aardsma is a Young-Earth Creationist
2. In fairness to the "omnipotence position," it could be argued that God simply refused to grant Jesus' prayer request as a choice. After all, as King of the Universe, Supreme Judge, etc., he could choose to just give humanity a Mulligan on the whole 'ancestor eating the fruit' thing and come up with some other method of salvation, such as having Jesus die for our sins symbolically through some kind of ceremony. Even a mere human ruler can grant clemency on whatever terms he chooses. However, this answer suggests that God preferred the brutal torture/murder of his own Son over the array of options his omnipotence presented him with, which supports the claim that he is evil.
3. Unless you're talking about the God of modern, Western Christian theology who is omnipotent and perfectly loving, benevolent, morally good, etc. My reaction to this entity would be very different, since he is not the God of the Bible. Starting from the "God is omnipotent and perfectly good" premise, we end up with something like God as portrayed in the Conversations With God books. This God would at least be harmless, and he clearly states in the CWG books that he does not need to be worshipped and doesn't punish anyone for not doing so. In which case, ironically, he is IMO more worthy of worship.