Why did we stop inventing gods?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Why did we stop inventing gods?

The ancients were quite good at inventing new gods. The bible shows that the Jews invented many gods before deciding that god could not be defined and settled for “I am“, as the greatest expression of god. “I am” as spoken as a man.

A History of God - YouTube

Jews, in their oral tradition, gave man the last word in what god and his policies were to be. They accepted that the man they chose as head Rabbi of their Divine council had the power to overrule their written tradition. Man’s words, not an imaginary god, had the final say on policy. Man was supreme and not one of the imaginary gods.

Christianity then changed much of the morals and policies of their newly invented god, Yahweh, and also transferred the power of god to a man. Jesus. Jesus was now placed at the power seat at the right hand of his newly invented god and placed Yahweh in the right hemisphere of the brain, as shown in the art of the day as depicted by Michelangelo in his creation painting in the Vatican.

Islam then invented Allah, and so far, rightfully named him the last god to be invented. Foolish but true to date.

I see that search for a god as a search for the best laws and rules to live life by. After all, we cannot follow an imaginary god and can only follow the laws and rules that those imaginary gods has spoken, recognizing of course, that only a person can speak those laws and rules and that it was really a wise person who was uttering those words.

Gnostic Christians always saw those invented gods, specifically Yahweh, Jesus and Allah, as immoral and not worthy of us and that is why they named those gods as immoral and vile demiurges. This is not to say that those demiurges did not have some good policies but only says that a better god could and should be invented. Gnostic Christianity lost the god wars and was decimated the moment Christianity gained political power which they used to end freedom of religion.

Are immoral demiurges like Yahweh, Jesus and Allah, the best that mankind can come up with?

Why do you think we stopped inventing gods and settled for demonstrably immoral ones?

Regards
DL

P.S. Gods are the opium of the people.
Huey Lewis And The News - I Want A New Drug - YouTube

[ShottleBop]

In traditional (Talmudic) Judaism, decisions were not made by a "Chief Rabbi," but by majority vote: Three Rabbinic Tales.

That said, it is part of Jewish tradition that the written word of the Torah may be abrogated by rabbinic decision, when it is determined that following the written rule would be detrimental to the good of the people. It was based on that principle that early rabbis abrogated certain of the laws relating to the forgiveness of debt (which had led to the unavailability of loans to people who desperately needed the assistance), and some 17 years ago, to our Conservative Rabbi's decision to perform commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples. Abrogation of Laws in Judaism

Overall, though, I'd liken the developments in rabbinic interpretation more to the "originalist" vs "living" approaches to interpretation of the U.S. Constitution than to anything else.

[JoeP]

Why do you think claim we stopped inventing gods? Can you really not think of any gods invented in the last 1000 years?

[ShottleBop]

Clearly, he's never read American Gods, by Neil Gaiman, or he'd know better.

[Kyuss Apollo]

One major reason why is that from about AD 400 to AD 1600 "inventing new gods" or continuing to worship the old pagan ones got you burned alive.

You aren't really serious though in posing this question. Or else you are utterly ignorant of all the new religions and attendant gods that have emerged in the recent past. Ever heard of Scientology? The Rosicrucians? Raëlism? Or should we Google all that for you?

Nor is the Flying Spaghetti Monster is demonstrably immoral.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why did we stop inventing gods?

When you stopped beating your wife?

[Ari]

In the last hundred years we've got,
Wiccan Goddess
Xenu
The American Flag
LSD

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ari

In the last hundred years we've got,
Wiccan Goddess
Xenu
The American Flag
LSD

Trump

[Vivisectus]

All true - not to mention the rate at which we re-invent old ones.

And of course the lazy assumption is that Gnosticism is morally superior - which is not quite such a given. A God that allows a Demiurge to remove sentient parts of itself and create a flawed creation from which only a select enlightened few return does not strike me as all that moral. You could argue and say that it is not that simple, but since you judge other creeds on a similarly shallow level you really don't get to claim that.

It can really be a rather smug and elitist creed designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to think of themselves as just a little smarter, just a little more evolved, enlightened and advanced than those around them.

[Angakuk]

You forgot "just a little more special".

[Vivisectus]

And that is all just fine and dandy: choose your creed, and then choose to inhabit that creed in the style that you like best, just like everyone else does.

But to then condemn other people for doing the same thing, using an extremely superficial (and often plain misinformed) interpretation of their creed when your own is wide open to the same objections is just not wise, and writing little screeds about how right your creed is and how wrong you feel your own narrow interpretation of other creeds are just makes you seem condescending and short-sighted.

Gnosis supposedly allows you to take a broader view of things, to not be bogged down in the simple worldly appearance of things. It seems to have had to opposite effect on you. What gives?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop

Why did we stop inventing gods?

The initial one wasn't invented ... and we haven't. Now the Gods are scientism and governmentism.

[Jerome]

Its ethereal, scientism, its all theoretical at this point. We have not been using the tenets of science to give a broad view of our world, instead we make up 96% of the universe to explain our explanations as to why the observational science doesn't work with the theoretical scientism.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Jerome

The initial one wasn't invented ...

All hail the Brahma!

[Dingfod]

All hail Nammu!

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by Jerome

I make up 96% of the universe to explain my explanations

Indeed.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by Jerome

instead we make up 96% of the universe

Are you talking about the energy density of the universe?

[Vivisectus]

Ah! That old chestnut. There is stuff you do not understand, therefore science is a kind of religion!

Rather than saying: some of the hypothetical solutions we are working with seem counter-intuitive to me at the moment and I do not really understand them anyway, and this makes me doubt their veracity because I do not like things I do not understand as they force to me to face the limits of my own knowledge and intelligence.

If scientism was a real problem, then we would not be getting ready to launch a satellite dedicated exclusively to checking some of our current ideas about the distribution of energy in the universe.

Of course the Chinese already have DAMPE out there as well. The dark matter / dark energy question is getting a lot of attention and we are just about to find out a whole bunch more about it. Interesting times!

[Jerome]

You are confusing science, which is a process, with scientism, which is a religion based upon made up unscientific nonsense.

[Vivisectus]

Nope, you are once again talking about something you know next to nothing about, got caught, and are now handily shuffling things back and forth between categories of your own defining. It is like the "well-read random person" of before: you handily define a group in such a way that any counter-example can simply be considered not to count.

So, dark matter and dark energy, a hypothesis which you do not understand, is currently "scientism" according to you. If the hypothesis is proven wrong, you get to claim to have said so all along. This is of course bullshit, as there is nothing unscientific about an incorrect hypothesis at all. But, if later on when the hypothesis is proven, yay! You get to pretend it was science all along and that you had no problem with it because of that!

It is a kind of intellectual cowardice you are famous for.

[Jerome]

I understand it, your claiming it is something other than made up to fit scientific observations which debunked the current view of the universe is how I know you are a scientism acolyte.

The equation is 2+2, theses are observed scientifically repeatable parts of the equation. The problem is the current view *needs* the solution to be 100, so they magically add in a made up 96 to the equation to get the needed solution.

Observations trump the hypothesis in science.

In scientism it is reversed, the hypothesis is supported by made up unobservable nonsense.

[Stephen Maturin]

We didn't invent the one true lord of lords -- Jobu -- until 1989. We are indeed still inventing gods, and the OP is predictably wrong. Again.

[livius drusus]

Up yours, Jobu.

[Stephen Maturin]

It is very bad to steal Jobu's rum.

show spoiler

Very bad.

[Vivisectus]

I understand it

Facts not in evidence

, your claiming it is something other than made up to fit scientific observations which debunked the current view of the universe is how I know you are a scientism acolyte.

That is what a hypothesis IS: something made up to fit the observations.

The equation is 2+2, theses are observed scientifically repeatable parts of the equation. The problem is the current view *needs* the solution to be 100, so they magically add in a made up 96 to the equation to get the needed solution.

A misrepresentation. Rather, we have tried calculating something in many different ways, and most of them came out around 100. The problem is that these ways are all consistent, and mutually supportive: it is hard to see how we could have gotten it wrong. But the last one comes out different even though it should be the same... thus we have a hypothesis about why this is. And multiple countries have missions planned or ongoing to try to confirm or disprove it.

Observations trump the hypothesis in science.

No, you are being an idiot. The observations suggest something is going on we do not yet fully understand. Dark matter and energy is the most popular hypothesis so far as to what that something is. It has not been proven yet, but so far it fits best with what we know. We are spending a lot of money and effort in order to get the observations that can confirm or disprove it.

In scientism it is reversed, the hypothesis is supported by made up unobservable nonsense.

The only unobserved nonsense is your made-up rubbish. We are looking to see if this hypothesis is correct - in fact we are spending millions on it. It will be equally exciting if it is confirmed or ruled out.