Even if Yawhew exists, why should we follow him?

This is something I've always wondered. Let's assume Yahweh is real and the fundamentalist interpretation of him is correct. One of the answers I always get when I ask why gays should marry or why sex before marriage is wrong or anything else along those lines is "it's in the Bible and God says so." Okay, assuming that is true, should we automatically obey this God for no other reason than he can send us to hell? Does that not make Yahweh a tyrant and despot? Does (divine)might make right? If so, we should be begging Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for forgiveness and swearing fealty to the Crown and Throne.

You have to, because otherwise he will smite you. Or, so they say.

I consider it a personal matter. Nobody should be able to dictate what anyone else believes in. If you don't want to, then I guess you shouldn't. I got no problem with that.

Have you considered looking to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I'm just saying the logic behind some of their beliefs make no sense to me.

It is weird. I don't get it either.

doesn't make any sense to me either. But the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) does.

There's no better way to become an atheist than reading the bible. Of course if those who use it as a club ever actually read it, they'd stfu.

Best answer I can give, barring that, is: "'Cuz god is jealous! And gets MAD, mad enough to KILL for no reason! and has every other human emotion, which you'd think a superior being wouldn't be burdened with."

The Bible says God is love and he's provided us with the good example of Jesus to follow. Sadly, organized religion has badly misrepresented the Bible for personal gain. History has proven that every human government and economic system (democracy, monarchy, communism, capitalism) has failed. Following Jehovah is the path to eternal life (saved--as in being resurrected from the dead).

...and I'm not even talking about the OT.

And history has proved that nothing lasts forever. It has not proved every government or economic system failed. The Roman government and economy was extremely successful. But changing conditions eventually changed the situation. Same with many civilizations. The one thing that has failed, completely, utterly, is the promise of salvation. Your religion threatens with a sword it does not have and promises what it cannot deliver. We are not sinners. We don't need salvation. And that's a good thing for there is not to be had.

Even the New Testament God support slavery,sexism, and is a brutal tyrant in Revelation.

The bible is a pretty fucked up book with some interesting stories and poetry thrown in. There is every message possible in there - kill your enemies, love your enemies, hate those who love you, love those who hate you, judge others, do not judge others, and so on.

The Bible says God is love (and jealousy, and wrath, and anger, unforgiving, petty, cruel, etc)

and he's provided us with the good example of Jesus to follow. (Because his OWN example was just gangbuster)

Sadly, organized religion has badly misrepresented the Bible for personal gain. (misrepresented? no, not really. Made a buck off of it? OOOOOH YES!!!)

History has proven that every human government and economic system (democracy, monarchy, communism, capitalism) has failed. (Not really sure... where that fits into... any of this... but ok, sure, w/e)

Following Jehovah is the path to eternal life (saved--as in being resurrected from the dead). (That's a matter of oppinion. I personally plan to press up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, B, A, select, start.)

Most people don't notice that the roots for the main Jewish holidays are indoeuropean. I think Yahweh, the god of Judah, as opposed to El who was the God of Israel, also comes from an indoeuropean root. Yewo. It means "law."

Concept gods weren't unknown in that area. The Egyptians had Maat. Truth, IIRC.

Anyone who has studied Judaism knows that the law is vital to us.

we commonly use that verb "to know", for example, to know that God _________________________.

Fundamentalism is only one, very limited/specific, type of theology amongst many other, less limited theologies, at least a few of which would regard Fundamentalism, in it's claims for ultimate and absolute comprehension of God re X, Y, or Z, as being essentially blasphemous.

Blaspheme comes from the idea that words have intrinsic meaning beyond their symbolic definitions. They don't. They are just sounds and squiggles. So why is Yahweh blasphemous and not Allah, Jehovah, Baal, Amon-Ra, Odin, Brahma, Aruramazda etc etc.?

Especially in reference to anything that would meet the criteria of that which we could call a God, assuming that God-predicates are not only necessary but also sufficient to God-ness would be something like removing a piece of a complete and perfect equation for everything and claiming that that piece is the totality.

I should have observed that my earlier post was one traditional perspective on the matter.

I am in agreement with you about the nature of words and the concept referred to by means of the word "blasphemy" is consistent with that agreement, so it is, therefore, used to refer to what people are doing when they disregard the arbitrary nature of all words used to refer to the ineffable, which we might safely assume is a trait of omnipotent omniscience, and, yes, that does necessarily include these words too.

the same time.

...also includes the fact that there is a Hell with ETERNAL damnation, a Hell which is unrelenting suffering and torture, and no higher authority to appeal to once damned to Hell, then yes, I'd say we should follow Yahweh.

Why? Not because it would be fair, not because such a sick tyrant would deserve our devotion, but plain and simple to protect our eternal asses. I can't think of any proud point of principle I'd be willing to suffer for eternally.

I've heard a few people answer questions like this with something like, "Well, I couldn't stand being in Heaven knowing that all those others, maybe people I knew and loved, were suffering in Hell", but I think people who respond like that aren't really grasping the Biblical concept of Hell: no pangs of guilt you might feel while in Heaven would come anywhere close, not by a mile, to the kind of suffering you'd experience in Hell, suffering that would never end, suffering that would not be relieved in the slightest by thinking to yourself, "I'm glad I stood up to that tyrant!".

No doubt strong motivation for converts.

What if Yahweh wants actual belief instead of lipservice? Could you, under hypothetical threat of force, believe in something that simply doesn't make sense to you right now?

I see the OP as a hypothetical question where the existence of Yahweh is taken as given. I answered in terms of what would proceed from knowing that to be a fact.

Believing out of fear that the existence of Yahweh might be true would be an entirely different thing.

Assuming that Yahweh's existence is a confirmed fact changes the landscape considerably. However, that's a big assumption that I didn't originally make or accept. I saw the OP as a temporary acceptance of a religious premise to make a point about the morality of the hypothesized god.

Difference of rhetorical interpretation, I guess.

The Abrahamic god is one of the nastiest characters ever written about. Take the Exodus narrative:

The Jews were held as slaves in Egypt and ol' smites-a-lot decides to bust then out...so they can worship him. Pharaoh was willing to oblige, but God "hardened his heart" so that he would refuse to let the Jews go. Why? So that plagues could be unleashed. The moral of he story as told by adherents is that Pharaoh was the bad guy and God is the hero.

Oh, but the New Testament is so much better, they say. Well, let's review what that says. God rapes a teenager to impregnate her with himself so that when his son/he grows up, he can be tortured to death to atone for a misdeed committed thousands of years prior by people who didn't know right from wrong. Blood sacrifice: just what the blood-thirsty deity ordered.

no really, that's it, that's the whole arguement. The whole reason is "OR ELSE".

Assuming you're not allergic.

The question is quite a valid one. All we know of God is in scripture. Sure there are the Mishnah for Jews and the Magisterium for Catholics and.....the weird guy in the polyester 3 piece and the perfect hair who stands in the pulpit for Protestants, but all of them refer to and rely on scripture as the base for teaching about God. And in sceripture it's undeniable that God comes off as a petulant capricious tyrant. Even if you get past the shellfish and the mixed fabrics as specific ritual prohibitions on one group, you atill have a creator who drowned 99.999% of his peak of creation for not doing what he wanted, even though he made them and possesesed perfect knowledge of the future when he did so (why bother, God, when you knew you'd drown them?). You still have a creator who condemns us to infinite punishment for very finite wrongdoing - most of all for simple skepticism during a benign life, while a repentant mass murderer gets off as long as he is credulous. You still have a God who takes a bet with evil incarnate that subjects his most pious follower to unimaginable horrors just to prove a point that he, being omniscient, knew in advance anyway.

Sure there are scriptural bits that say God is loving and merciful etc, but that's a major issue. They SAY he is, but I cannot think of many reported actions of his that demonstrate this. Almost everything God DOES is monomaniacal tyranny. Where is a story of Amelekites pardoned and shown how to live in peace? Where is a story of Midianites and their Marshall Plan? Even if we look at the supposedly ultimate kindness of offering eternal life, it's only IF you jump through his hoops and trust that this slaughterer of millions (excluding estimates such as the populations of Sodom and Gomottah, over 2 million numbered people are killed by or at the command of God in scripture) will keep his end of the deal, and it's only to save you from the eternal torture that he set up himself for those who don't buy it. Honestly - if somebody killed your family, took all your belongings and held you out of a skyscraper window, is he being kind and loving just because he doesn't let go after putting you in that position?

Chocolate cake like that is very likely to be laced with cyanide and have razor blades baked in.

But scriptural bickering aside, if the concept of God, or YHWH, is that of an all-good, loving entity, i.e., That Is Who Is, the most natural thing would be to accept it.

So I guess the question is, follow who? You would have to know God before answering that. I'm not sure that slicing and tossing bits of scripture is the best way to do that.

It's hardly bickering to rely on source documents. Sure there are non-canonical writings, but they don't show him in any better light from the sample I have seen. Even if not a literalist, it's very difficult to look at the Bible in toto and see a loving kind deity. Would I follow the god of the Bible if he existed as described? Too right - just like I would not have argued with Genghis Khan or Stalin were I an underling of theirs - out of fear and self-preservation. Would I WANT to follow such a god - even in the 2.0 NT version? Not at all.

Nor is scripture limited to the face of the words.

I fail to understand how people take scripture literally, ignoring years of scriptural analysis, and wave it around like it's a newly found discovery. The disciplines, beyond the bald reading of scripture, employed by theology have been known for centuries.

There have been many writings about God beyond scripture. This is not news to me. It WOULD be news to me though to find another source for new knowledge about God. You can read Origen or you can read Spong and you can find very different exegetical approaches, but both are based on mostly canonical but entirely scriptural writings. It doesn't matter how sophisticated or longstanding your hermeneutic approach is, it remains hermeneutics applied to scripture. The only other possible source of bew knowledge about God is via gnosis, which precludes any validation and external applicability.

So I ask again. Where else does knowledge about God initially derive? There is no possible empiricism. There has been no addiional first person revelation for 2000 years. All theology however advanced remains explanatory not revelatory.

Different ways of talking about old information is not the same thing.

An analogy may help you get the difference:

People - in various ratios - have known that the earth revolves around the sun since Aristarchus. I could write in a different way than he did about how or why it does, but without adding a single new piece of information. Kepler added new information - the elliptical nature of the orbit. I could talk about THAT in a different way from his, but without adding a single piece of new information. I haven't a clue who came up with how to precisely calculate perigee and apogee and declination and axial tilt and the like, but they added new information too. O could talk, with increasing difficulty and error, about those things in a different way than has been done before, but without adding new information.

Where, in theology, are the Aristarchuses and Keplers? From where do they get new information, new validated, confirmable by others data, about God? Where has this source ever been outside scripture of one kind or another, including for example the Edomite and Canaanite scripture from which the divergent ideas about the "one" big G God were drawn?

Theology, unlike science, attempts understanding of the nature of God, not measurement of data as a means to defining phenemona.

Kalam and Kalama Sutta are examples of techniques of speculative theology in non-Christian religions. In the Catholic religion, cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Jesuit Hugo Rahner, as well as Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckx have all made contributions to modern theological understanding.

You'll get nowhere if you equate theology to physical science. If you choos the latter as your final arbiter of reality, then you're already there.

But that's not what theology is about.

Even a cursory examination reveals that.

How many ICBMs does she have?

Maltheism - the belief that God exists, but He's a cruel, abusive asshole who is unworthy of worship, and that man should be rebelling against Him.

It does solve the Epicurean dilemma - to the maltheist, God is malevolent and constantly fucking with us.

Of course, I'm an atheist - God's nothing but a cartoon character for me.

...if there really were an evil tyrant God like the Biblical God, and he were actually all powerful and all knowing, therefore invincible, and he yielded the power of inflicting eternal, inescapable torment.

If you imagine Hell as the kind of place where you might lurk in seedy coffee houses secretly conspiring with fallen angels, eventually raising an army to defeat God, that could make for interesting fiction, but it's incompatible with the existing canonical fiction about Yahweh.

Did I hear right that the Gnostics held the theory that Yahweh was an evil son-of-a-bitch, the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually trying to help humanity by giving them knowledge, sort of like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and giving it to man, and that they thought Jesus was a different deity entirely?

substitution.

What people are trying to refer to with whatever word they are using for "God", and The Bible is one source of support on this perspective (as in "I am the way, the truth, and the life ...") is truth, a.k.a. reality.

And, yes, there are various ways to know truth/reality, all of which ARE contextual, a fact that implies partiality:wholeness, and I have a personal preference for the rational way-of-knowing (epistemology) that strives for actual validity and reliability, but since that too is necessarily contextual, more-or-less-related-parts-within-a-whole, I also deliberately maintain a relationship to potential truth which is beyond the actual context of my knowing.

Do you wait until a Republican candidate knocks on your door before you decide they are unacceptable?

He shouts up from the basement while studying last night, "Dad, why would anyone be a practicing Calvinist?" I said, "I know; they're dicks." His reply, "No, I mean if you really believe the dogma of the church, who gives a fuck what you do--your destiny is predetermined."

Much of religion is confusing, to be sure.

If you assume a creator god who knows everything, how is it that he did not know your soul's eventual destination when he made it, and how did he not have the power to make it otherwise?

It can still be your own actions or belief that damns you or saves you (although he still had the power to make you othewise) but God as seen by most Xians absolutely MUST know your eventual salvation status long before your birth - hence predestination.

If Fermat's Last Theorem is true (as Wiles claims to have shown), then even God cannot prove that Fermat's Last Theorem is false.

Anyway, it'll be amusing when courts for juvenile offenders hear expert testimony that no longer focuses on "socio-economic" disadvantages, and instead focuses on predestination.

How do we know that pharmaceuticals or vaccines do anything beneficial? Maybe the attempt to randomly assign either a placebo or a vaccine to a given volunteer actually serves to foretell who was predestined to stay ill and who was predestined to recover from the illness.

Omnipotence is a doorway to contradiction and paradox. Such a being could present an integer solution to xⁿ+yⁿ=zⁿ where n>2. Hell, such a being could make a four-sides triangle. That's the definition of all-powerful.

"A common characteristic of some of these groups was the teaching that the realisation of Gnosis (esoteric or intuitive knowledge), is the way to salvation of the soul from the material world. They saw the material world as created through an intermediary being (demiurge) rather than directly by God. In most of the systems, this demiurge was seen as imperfect, in others even as evil. Different gnostic schools sometimes identified the demiurge as Adam, Ahriman, Samael, Satan, Yaldabaoth, or Yahweh.

Some Christian gnostic sects inverted traditional interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, leading Jewish-Israeli scholar Gershom Scholem (according to Hans Jonas) to call Gnosticism "the greatest case of metaphysical anti-Semitism.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism