Happy Atheist Forum

General => Philosophy => Topic started by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 01:18:28 AM

Title: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 01:18:28 AM
The Prince is a political treatise written in the 16th Century and is considered one of the first books on modern political philosophy, in which observed reality is more important than any abstract ideal. Back when it was published it generated controversy, which persists to this day, with some calling it 'anti-christian' and 'immoral' among other inviting labels. It was added to the Catholic Church's index of prohibited books, making it a must read, in my humble opinion.  :devil:

Anyway, a post on another thread prompted me to start this topic, because I see a few interesting parallels between Machiavelli's Prince and the Christian God.

The whole book is available online for free, I will just very briefly summarise  the chapters which pertain to the Prince's character.

Chapter 14 of The Prince:  The chapter begins with "A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank."

From the Wikipedia entry for Yahweh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh):

QuoteIn the oldest biblical literature he is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah, and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses. By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.

The Christian god is a war god.

Chapter 15 of The Prince: In this chapter, Machiavelli writes on how princes should act. He doesn't cling to old notions in which rulers are idealised, instead he bases his recommendation on how real people interacting in the real world have gained and held onto power. He recommends that princes or rulers be bad instead of good. If it is necessary to commit unscrupulous acts then do it, because the world is full of unscrupulous people who will do anything to gain power. Power and ability to maintain power also lie in one's reputation, which is affected by the prince's behaviour. Machiavelli recommends that the prince have a...ahem...Machiavellian approach -- avoid vices and virtues that can damage reputation. The ends justify the means.

There are numerous accounts in the Bible (both Old Testament and New) in which god is not bound to the same moral code he expects humans to follow.

Chapter 16 of The Prince: this chapter is on cultivating the public image of generosity and why that is important. If you know how this might apply to the god of the Bible's character please let me know. :grin:

Chapter 17 of The Prince: Machiavelli writes on mercy and cruelty. If one cannot be both feared and loved, then it is better to be feared than loved.

God has done well for himself in this respect, he is both feared and loved by many believers.   

Chapter 18 of The Prince: this chapter is on deceit and the virtues of lying when need be.

The God of the Bible is capable of lying in order to test people. If anyone has some more information I would be very interested to read it.

Chapter 19 of The Prince:the ruler should avoid being despised, held in contempt or be regarded with no respect by their subjects.

I think, in general, the God of the Bible is able to pull this off. Those who believe don't seem to despise him. 

-~-

Well, that's it for now. Sorry for the wall of text. :grin:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: No one on August 28, 2017, 01:58:17 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-man-created-god-in-his-image-intolerant-sexist-homophobic-and-violent-marie-de-france-74-69-97.jpg&hash=ef729f85f868885713cd2253d8bfdd1e1f6430a3)
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 02:05:57 AM
To qualify that statement I little I believe that the ruling classes "created" (or evolved) god in their image.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: No one on August 28, 2017, 02:10:23 AM
I can say this with 100% certainty, if when I die, I do in fact meet this god character, I will punch it in the face and tell it to go fuck itself!
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 07:58:02 AM
What? You do not fear this vengeful god? You know god is perfectly capable of being cruel and has a special place for people who seek to punch it in the face, right?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


At least as most Christians will tell you.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 28, 2017, 08:46:29 AM
Exodus 20

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

So, no omnilove then? Just "Do as I ssy or die."
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 08:46:42 AM
Tl;dr version.

It's been a very long time since I read The Prince but when I did I couldn't help noticing some interesting parallels between Machiavelli's description and advice for princes/rulers, hereditary or not, and the Christian god's "personality". Of course as an atheist I don't believe that that or any gods are real, and that they were all created in mankind's "mental image".

Machiavelli was a realist. He described how politics worked as he saw it in his day, and extracted from his observations the ideals for a perfect, successful ruler. Success being the ability to gain and keep power. The point of this thread is: can the same approach be applied to god?

No one can deny that throughout history god has been successful -- from a small tribal war god to the 'only' god of one of the world's major religions (three major religions if you accept that he is also the god of the hebrews and islam). This god must have gotten something right to hold such sway in the minds of his believers.

I do realise that different people have different mental representations of this god, and that if you take into consideration a lot of people the god character can become very complex, but there are what seem to be constants. Some would say that god is 'love' and none of the evil things, but they're choosing to ignore a lot of what's in their holy book.

I do not think that there was some sort of conspiracy to create god, but instead believe that the god personality evolved through a process similar to natural selection, mirrored on the "personalities" of efficient rulers. Characteristics that led to there being a higher number of believers were selected while undesirable traits or those less conducive to religious power weren't. 

Warlike? Check. Good. The god idea can spread.

Unscrupulous? This god can definitely be. Good. He is not bound to the same moral code that believers say emanate from his person. This god can do what is necessary to hold onto power. 

Merciful and cruel? Oh yeah. I don't think this point needs further elaboration...

Feared and loved? Yes. Perfect! But not hated by most of those who believe. Even better!



I will probably get round to a stl;dr (still too long; didn't read) version :grin:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 08:53:30 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 28, 2017, 08:46:29 AM
Exodus 20

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

So, no omnilove then? Just "Do as I ssy or die."

Machiavelli goes into how Christianity with its ideals of love, mercy and meekness has made mankind weaker and that such people would not be able to conquer the world (he looks to the ancient pagan Rome as an ideal). 

I don't know why he doesn't mention all the holy wars and such -- maybe he does but my memory is a little rusty, I shall have to read it again.  :sidesmile:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 28, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
This god thing is just a way to explain and excuse all those traits in humanity, "If it's OK by god it's OK by me!" "In the name of gpd...", "I do god's work here...", "God wills it, it is written..." et bloody (quite often) cetera.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 08:57:33 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 28, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
This gid thing is just a way to explsin and excuse all those traits in humanity, "If it's OK by god it's OK by me!" "In the name of gpd...", "I do god's work here...", "God wills it, it is written..." et bloody (quite often) cetera.

Yes, and I always found it rather funny that what god wills seems to coincide with what the person themselves want. If you want to get to know a person, see what kind of god they worship.  ::)
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Davin on August 28, 2017, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 07:58:02 AM
What? You do not fear this vengeful god? You know god is perfectly capable of being cruel and has a special place for people who seek to punch it in the face, right?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


At least as most Christians will tell you.
Fixed the hidden gif.

Interesting thread.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Davin on August 28, 2017, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 07:58:02 AM
What? You do not fear this vengeful god? You know god is perfectly capable of being cruel and has a special place for people who seek to punch it in the face, right?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


At least as most Christians will tell you.
Fixed the hidden gif.

Interesting thread.

Thank you, Davin.

Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 28, 2017, 11:02:35 PM
There are other views of the character of God than those expressed here.  Machiavelli does not corner the market in that regard.  I'm curious why you even discuss God's character since you don't believe in him, irrespective of how he might be if he exists.  A text could paint him as the most loving, merciful, compassionate being possible, and you would not believe in him.  So why the effort at defining his character based on one interpretation? 
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 28, 2017, 11:02:35 PM
There are other views of the character of God than those expressed here.  Machiavelli does not corner the market in that regard.  I'm curious why you even discuss God's character since you don't believe in him, irrespective of how he might be if he exists.  A text could paint him as the most loving, merciful, compassionate being possible, and you would not believe in him.  So why the effort at defining his character based on one interpretation?

Machiavelli doesn't speak of the Xtian God, he mentions Christians and Christianity in his book, and not in a favourable light, which is one of the reasons he was banned by the Catholic Church back then and given labels such as "anti-christian". 

Believing is not a prerequisite to trying to compare or analyse. On the conceptual level he does exist to an atheist -- an idea that believers try to "sell" even if they do this by using threats and force. I chose to compare the Christian God to Machiavelli's prince in particular because I live in a mostly Xtian society and that's the concept or idea that one encounters everyday. 

I'm curious why certain beliefs and ideas take root in people's minds. Like I wrote above, I do realise that different people have different mental representations of god. I think that if the idea of god is modeled on something such as Machiavelli's prince then that would be very interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your interpretation does not seem to be the most common out there. Apparently I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist based on what I've been told by a lot of people.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Icarus on August 29, 2017, 01:05:32 AM
Thank you for creating an interesting and somewhat exploratory thread Silver.

If it is any comfort, a lot of us will be truly pleased to meet you in person. That will be when we are all booked on a cruise ship down the river Styx and onward to the bowels of hell. On a positive note, most of the cruise ships serve pretty good food and there are cash bars too.  Party on!

Now I will have to dig through the library to find the Machiavelli tome. Will Books and Cats need to put the Prince on our reading list?
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:28:44 AM
I'm glad you find the topic interesting, Icarus! :grin:

Quote from: Icarus on August 29, 2017, 01:05:32 AM
...Party on!

:headbang:

QuoteNow I will have to dig through the library to find the Machiavelli tome. Will Books and Cats need to put the Prince on our reading list?

If you do read it I am very interested in your perspective. :smilenod:


Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 02:00:54 AM
It's interesting that the bible uses words like "lord" and "king". In fuedal kingdoms, lords were owners of land who ruled over serfs and took payment (crops) in return for military protection. I could see how this system in the bible could be something to organize serfs into being integrated into the fuedal system.

It creates a system of obedience and of courtship. Similar things come to mind. Bushido, for samurai. Omerta, the code for the mafia. They all helped the members survive. The only difference for the bible was that the survival of the members required them to spread the religion by recruiting more members.

There are also other simularities that have to do with the connection to the earth and environment people lived in way back then. For example it says man was made out of sand (other places is clay but same point) and many times in the bible it says they tracked through the desert. Native Americans and some african tribes have this connection to the earth. That the earth is where they came from. But the bible tweaked that to accommodate pagan gods who were people. God made you, from earth.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 02:47:51 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 02:00:54 AM
It's interesting that the bible uses words like "lord" and "king". In fuedal kingdoms, lords were owners of land who ruled over serfs and took payment (crops) in return for military protection. I could see how this system in the bible could be something to organize serfs into being integrated into the fuedal system.

It creates a system of obedience and of courtship. Similar things come to mind. Bushido, for samurai. Omerta, the code for the mafia. They all helped the members survive. The only difference for the bible was that the survival of the members required them to spread the religion by recruiting more members.

There are also other simularities that have to do with the connection to the earth and environment people lived in way back then. For example it says man was made out of sand (other places is clay but same point) and many times in the bible it says they tracked through the desert. Native Americans and some african tribes have this connection to the earth. That the earth is where they came from. But the bible tweaked that to accommodate pagan gods who were people. God made you, from earth.
Religion is all about power and control.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 02:58:00 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 02:00:54 AM
It's interesting that the bible uses words like "lord" and "king". In fuedal kingdoms, lords were owners of land who ruled over serfs and took payment (crops) in return for military protection. I could see how this system in the bible could be something to organize serfs into being integrated into the fuedal system.

I can definitely see the lords and kings using religion to their advantage! In The Prince Machiavelli wrote that a leader must appear to be religious when it suits them.

QuoteIt creates a system of obedience and of courtship. Similar things come to mind. Bushido, for samurai. Omerta, the code for the mafia. They all helped the members survive. The only difference for the bible was that the survival of the members required them to spread the religion by recruiting more members.

Christianity started as a religion for slaves (one could say that there's little difference between serfs and slaves as far as the quality of most of their lives were). It was basically an underground cult until Justinian took the first steps towards installing Christianity in his empire, which became the dominant religion during Constantine's reign, who ended the persecution against the Christians. 

Why would slaves find this religion so appealing? Did it help alleviate suffering? Were they already conditioned to be 'lambs' or followers of a higher power? Maybe they just switched real human"shepherds" for another, one that was abstract but still had human mouthpieces (the clergy).

Then, along came Protestantism which rejected the main source of religious authority in the Middle Ages. They did not take too kindly to that. Reformation, Counter Reformation...it's a power struggle. The Bible was printed in languages other than clerical Latin, which caused big problems for those who sought to control.

QuoteThere are also other simularities that have to do with the connection to the earth and environment people lived in way back then. For example it says man was made out of sand (other places is clay but same point) and many times in the bible it says they tracked through the desert. Native Americans and some african tribes have this connection to the earth. That the earth is where they came from. But the bible tweaked that to accommodate pagan gods who were people. God made you, from earth.

That is interesting. :chin:

I'm going to play Devil's God's Advocate here.  :devil: There is a hypothesis that clay might have played a part in the origin of life. 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm)
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 03:08:08 AM
Silver said:
QuoteI'm going to play Devil's God's Advocate here.  :devil: There is a hypothesis that clay might have played a part in the origin of life. 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm

Hmm, did I miss any link there that some clays are formed from fine volcanic ash? Add that to mineral rich volcanic water, or even mineral rich rain due to volcanic action . . .
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 04:02:56 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.
"Lions led by donkeys" may have some truth in it over the ages, despite the "cruel calculus" of the needs of war.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 29, 2017, 03:08:08 AM
Silver said:
QuoteI'm going to play Devil's God's Advocate here.  :devil: There is a hypothesis that clay might have played a part in the origin of life. 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm

Hmm, did I miss any link there that some clays are formed from fine volcanic ash? Add that to mineral rich volcanic water, or even mineral rich rain due to volcanic action . . .

I think so. I think it has more to do with how the clay' molecules are arranged which "protect" and compartmentalise organic molecules and reactions. I'm not too sure though, I would have to look into it. One hypothesis I've read is that RNA in certain hydrogels can even replicate, which might be a testable idea if there are no time constraints. :notsure:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.

That's very interesting, Arturo, I didn't know that. It seems to be a little like religious martyrdom in a way.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 01:23:22 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:12:30 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 29, 2017, 03:08:08 AM
Silver said:
QuoteI'm going to play Devil's God's Advocate here.  :devil: There is a hypothesis that clay might have played a part in the origin of life. 

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4784/20131106/life-evolved-clay-researchers-find.htm

Hmm, did I miss any link there that some clays are formed from fine volcanic ash? Add that to mineral rich volcanic water, or even mineral rich rain due to volcanic action . . .

I think so. I think it has more to do with how the clay' molecules are arranged which "protect" and compartmentalise organic molecules and reactions. I'm not too sure though, I would have to look into it. One hypothesis I've read is that RNA in certain hydrogels can even replicate, which might be a testable idea if there are no time constraints. :notsure:

This is going OT but... Since the article mentioned polymers and both RBA and DNA are also polymers . . .  Generate a few trillion different polymers and who knows what might happen.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 28, 2017, 11:02:35 PM
There are other views of the character of God than those expressed here.  Machiavelli does not corner the market in that regard.  I'm curious why you even discuss God's character since you don't believe in him, irrespective of how he might be if he exists.  A text could paint him as the most loving, merciful, compassionate being possible, and you would not believe in him.  So why the effort at defining his character based on one interpretation?

Machiavelli doesn't speak of the Xtian God, he mentions Christians and Christianity in his book, and not in a favourable light, which is one of the reasons he was banned by the Catholic Church back then and given labels such as "anti-christian". 

Believing is not a prerequisite to trying to compare or analyse. On the conceptual level he does exist to an atheist -- an idea that believers try to "sell" even if they do this by using threats and force. I chose to compare the Christian God to Machiavelli's prince in particular because I live in a mostly Xtian society and that's the concept or idea that one encounters everyday. 

I'm curious why certain beliefs and ideas take root in people's minds. Like I wrote above, I do realise that different people have different mental representations of god. I think that if the idea of god is modeled on something such as Machiavelli's prince then that would be very interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your interpretation does not seem to be the most common out there. Apparently I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist based on what I've been told by a lot of people.

If this is just a mental exercise, then I offer an alternative to The Prince, and that would be The Shepherd.   That is a pretty consistent motif in the NT.  Both Christians and atheists fixate on the OT, which, in my view, presents a wrong model for God.  I believe that Jesus, to the extent he was able to do in the culture in which he lived, tried to correct that mistaken view of God.  Unfortunately, the OT and NT  get lumped together, giving rise to the harsh and judgmental view of God that we see here.  My view differs significantly from this model. It builds on what Jesus began, and brings it to a more logical conclusion.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 29, 2017, 01:23:22 PM
This is going OT but... Since the article mentioned polymers and both RBA and DNA are also polymers . . .  Generate a few trillion different polymers and who knows what might happen.

Yes, probabilities certainly increase that something very interesting might happen. :grin: The clay hypothesis beats the RNA World hypothesis I think, which has fallen into scientific disfavour in the past few years. 
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 28, 2017, 11:02:35 PM
There are other views of the character of God than those expressed here.  Machiavelli does not corner the market in that regard.  I'm curious why you even discuss God's character since you don't believe in him, irrespective of how he might be if he exists.  A text could paint him as the most loving, merciful, compassionate being possible, and you would not believe in him.  So why the effort at defining his character based on one interpretation?

Machiavelli doesn't speak of the Xtian God, he mentions Christians and Christianity in his book, and not in a favourable light, which is one of the reasons he was banned by the Catholic Church back then and given labels such as "anti-christian". 

Believing is not a prerequisite to trying to compare or analyse. On the conceptual level he does exist to an atheist -- an idea that believers try to "sell" even if they do this by using threats and force. I chose to compare the Christian God to Machiavelli's prince in particular because I live in a mostly Xtian society and that's the concept or idea that one encounters everyday. 

I'm curious why certain beliefs and ideas take root in people's minds. Like I wrote above, I do realise that different people have different mental representations of god. I think that if the idea of god is modeled on something such as Machiavelli's prince then that would be very interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your interpretation does not seem to be the most common out there. Apparently I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist based on what I've been told by a lot of people.

If this is just a mental exercise, then I offer an alternative to The Prince, and that would be The Shepherd.   That is a pretty consistent motif in the NT.  Both Christians and atheists fixate on the OT, which, in my view, presents a wrong model for God.  I believe that Jesus, to the extent he was able to do in the culture in which he lived, tried to correct that mistaken view of God.  Unfortunately, the OT and NT  get lumped together, giving rise to the harsh and judgmental view of God that we see here.  My view differs significantly from this model. It builds on what Jesus began, and brings it to a more logical conclusion.

I have often wondered whether the O and NT gods really were the same entity, the NT writers were bound to reference the OT just to ride on its existing "authority" in the minds of people. The Ronans drew links between their gods and most local ones, providing the local ines did not try to muscle in too much. The Christians, OTOH, are well into evangelising and pushing their way in, following Peter. Maybe that is why the Romans initially tried to wipe them out rather than try to absorb them. Wonder if they tried to link Christianity with Mithraism to bring it under control but failed.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:55:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2017, 11:40:12 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 28, 2017, 11:02:35 PM
There are other views of the character of God than those expressed here.  Machiavelli does not corner the market in that regard.  I'm curious why you even discuss God's character since you don't believe in him, irrespective of how he might be if he exists.  A text could paint him as the most loving, merciful, compassionate being possible, and you would not believe in him.  So why the effort at defining his character based on one interpretation?

Machiavelli doesn't speak of the Xtian God, he mentions Christians and Christianity in his book, and not in a favourable light, which is one of the reasons he was banned by the Catholic Church back then and given labels such as "anti-christian". 

Believing is not a prerequisite to trying to compare or analyse. On the conceptual level he does exist to an atheist -- an idea that believers try to "sell" even if they do this by using threats and force. I chose to compare the Christian God to Machiavelli's prince in particular because I live in a mostly Xtian society and that's the concept or idea that one encounters everyday. 

I'm curious why certain beliefs and ideas take root in people's minds. Like I wrote above, I do realise that different people have different mental representations of god. I think that if the idea of god is modeled on something such as Machiavelli's prince then that would be very interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

Your interpretation does not seem to be the most common out there. Apparently I'm going to hell because I'm an atheist based on what I've been told by a lot of people.

If this is just a mental exercise, then I offer an alternative to The Prince, and that would be The Shepherd.   That is a pretty consistent motif in the NT.  Both Christians and atheists fixate on the OT, which, in my view, presents a wrong model for God.  I believe that Jesus, to the extent he was able to do in the culture in which he lived, tried to correct that mistaken view of God.  Unfortunately, the OT and NT  get lumped together, giving rise to the harsh and judgmental view of God that we see here.  My view differs significantly from this model. It builds on what Jesus began, and brings it to a more logical conclusion.

While possibly gentler than a ruthless, politically savvy ruler I don't think too highly of shepherds either. Sheep-herder, human herder...humherds? :chin: I think too many people already evade responsibility for their actions, and having a divine shepherd in the mix can really increase that tendency. I'm not saying that everyone does this, but it does happen to a considerable degree.

Anyway, I find your view on the God of the OT to be interesting. Unfortunately, the OT is part of the Christian Bible, though and is still used as justification for backward beliefs and behaviours we still have to deal with today. It's part of the religion. You might argue that their view is wrong, but it's there and apparently here to stay.

I'm not saying that I want people to follow the OT more, I'd much rather they cherry-pick the nicer things about their religion as I think it's less harmful and can even be beneficial to society. 

From the cynical but practical view, why the switch from the vengeful God to the loving God? Were people wrong back then of their interpretations or used different filters for interpreting "divine" events? Did society and how people saw the world evolve into something different, which made people adopt Christianity? What is it about this religion that is so attractive?
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 02:15:52 PM
If you look at the OT as allegorical, much as the Greek myths and legends is now viewed (Oedipus and Elektra in particular), it makes an interesting exercise in analysis. Just as the Greek gods and legends tended to be bloodthirsty so . .

The NT is more of a collection of morality tales, idealistic modes of behaviour, parables/examples and other things to, maybe, negate the OT in many ways, get the people out of "the old way of thinking" IMHO. Good intentions. But, human nature being what as it is it quite soon became just another excuse to lop heads off or have people-roasts.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: No one on August 29, 2017, 04:07:12 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)xSilverPhinx:
What? You do not fear this vengeful god? You know god is perfectly capable of being cruel and has a special place for people who seek to punch it in the face, right?

No. In absolute honesty, I'd rather deal with Satan. At least Beelzebub is a prick to your face. Not some back stabbing, self centered, vengeful cunt!
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.

That's very interesting, Arturo, I didn't know that. It seems to be a little like religious martyrdom in a way.

Going back to this...the guy who literally wrote the book on Bushido actually studied english literature and writing. He wasn't really connected to Japan as much as I can see.

Though ritual suicide was already a thing for a long time, it wasn't used very much. People didn't want to die. When Bushido was published it made it more....easy?
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:55:16 PM
[ What is it about this religion that is so attractive?

It's the character of Jesus, pure and simple.  He attracted people then, he attracts people now.  If he is the "Son of God", then God must be like him.  The other stuff, unfortunately, gets in the way.  This is not to say that the power inherent in religion does not attract political/social leaders who want to exploit it, but Christianity's pull on the common man begins and ends with Jesus (I suppose for Catholics you would need to add Mary to that formula).  Jesus and Mary, as they are presented in the NT, are approachable.

Most people don't have the view of shepherds that you have.  "Pastoral" scenes are favorites in art and literature.  The humble leader of a flock is clearly preferable than a ruthless prince. Like it or not, people will always have a leader, whether political, social, religious or otherwise.  A shepherd is a leader.  I see nothing nefarious in the concept itself.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 04:23:01 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 29, 2017, 01:42:53 PM
I have often wondered whether the O and NT gods really were the same entity, the NT writers were bound to reference the OT just to ride on its existing "authority" in the minds of people.

There is some truth to this, in my view.  Jesus is not really very much like the vengeful god of the OT.  But that was the prevailing culture, so he sort of had to tip his hat to it, and then subvert that model as much as he could.  People who want to use religion to manipulate and control almost invariably draw more on the OT than the NT.  No kings and warriors among the NT characters.  Just carpenters, tent-makers, tax collectors and harlots.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 04:26:14 PM
I remember my pastor saying Jesus was a dick. Someone asked Jesus a question and Jesus says "get behind me satan".

Also our current leader is a huuuuuge prick.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 29, 2017, 04:37:36 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:55:16 PM
[ What is it about this religion that is so attractive?

It's the character of Jesus, pure and simple.  He attracted people then, he attracts people now.  If he is the "Son of God", then God must be like him.  The other stuff, unfortunately, gets in the way.  This is not to say that the power inherent in religion does not attract political/social leaders who want to exploit it, but Christianity's pull on the common man begins and ends with Jesus (I suppose for Catholics you would need to add Mary to that formula).  Jesus and Mary, as they are presented in the NT, are approachable.

Most people don't have the view of shepherds that you have.  "Pastoral" scenes are favorites in art and literature.  The humble leader of a flock is clearly preferable than a ruthless prince. Like it or not, people will always have a leader, whether political, social, religious or otherwise.  A shepherd is a leader.  I see nothing nefarious in the concept itself.

Not sure how to put this... "Shepherds" can be useful people, the vicar has his flock after all (and even some if those preach violence). Great if everyone is led by shepherds, or a Shepherd, all singing from the same hymn sheet. It's never going to happen and because of that humanity will continue to chop one another up I think.

If a semi-Apocalypse happens with only two small groups of humanity remaining they have the choice of fighting for whatever is left or cooperating to build anew. If they are of different beliefs chances are they will fight it out - both still claiming their holy figure, or their perception of it, is the real one. Should they have to cooperate initially, to survive, chances are that will only defer the fight until one side gets the edge and trounces the other to make their belief supreme.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 08:23:42 PM
I'm not a follower.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:22:19 PM
Quote from: No one on August 29, 2017, 04:07:12 PM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)xSilverPhinx:
What? You do not fear this vengeful god? You know god is perfectly capable of being cruel and has a special place for people who seek to punch it in the face, right?

No. In absolute honesty, I'd rather deal with Satan. At least Beelzebub is a prick to your face. Not some back stabbing, self centered, vengeful cunt!

What was Satan's worst crime anyways? We have some crazy YECers claiming that he hid dinosaur fossils in order to fool humanity into believing in extinction and evolution. He tempts people into eating crunchy chocolate chip cookies when they're on a diet. Did he actually kill anyone like God did? :notsure:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.

That's very interesting, Arturo, I didn't know that. It seems to be a little like religious martyrdom in a way.

Going back to this...the guy who literally wrote the book on Bushido actually studied english literature and writing. He wasn't really connected to Japan as much as I can see.

Though ritual suicide was already a thing for a long time, it wasn't used very much. People didn't want to die. When Bushido was published it made it more....easy?

And what did they have to gain from killing themselves?
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 04:19:27 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:55:16 PM
[ What is it about this religion that is so attractive?

It's the character of Jesus, pure and simple.  He attracted people then, he attracts people now.  If he is the "Son of God", then God must be like him.  The other stuff, unfortunately, gets in the way.  This is not to say that the power inherent in religion does not attract political/social leaders who want to exploit it, but Christianity's pull on the common man begins and ends with Jesus (I suppose for Catholics you would need to add Mary to that formula).  Jesus and Mary, as they are presented in the NT, are approachable.

Jesus does seem to be a simple character with a simple message. :notsure: God, on the other hand...rather a split personality if you contrast the OT with the NT.

QuoteMost people don't have the view of shepherds that you have.  "Pastoral" scenes are favorites in art and literature.

I don't have a problem with pastoral scenes in art and literature, other than the fact that it appears to be a boring pastime. Like fishing.  :P

QuoteThe humble leader of a flock is clearly preferable than a ruthless prince.

Depends on what the goal is, at least according to Machiavelli. The prince in The Prince was inspired by Cesare Borgia, who was son of the Pope Alexander VI and was Machiavelli's contemporary (during the Italian Renaissance). Back then the Italian Peninsula was an agglomeration of many small principalities and republics. Machiavelli argues in his book that it takes a strong leader (one full of "virtu"), one who can and is willing to be ruthless if need be, to unite the italian States. He's basically a Cesare fanboy.

QuoteLike it or not, people will always have a leader, whether political, social, religious or otherwise.  A shepherd is a leader.  I see nothing nefarious in the concept itself.

And who leads the leader? :chin:

What if the person is a lousy leader who leads their people to ruin? Too much trust is placed on some people who do not deserve it.

Leadership is a position of power over others and leaders are not immune to power games, even your gentle Shepherd. For one, they might have to compete with other leaders for influence. Even cooperating with other leaders in order to lead is a power move.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:59:14 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 29, 2017, 04:23:01 PM
...tax collectors...

:lynch:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.

That's very interesting, Arturo, I didn't know that. It seems to be a little like religious martyrdom in a way.

Going back to this...the guy who literally wrote the book on Bushido actually studied english literature and writing. He wasn't really connected to Japan as much as I can see.

Though ritual suicide was already a thing for a long time, it wasn't used very much. People didn't want to die. When Bushido was published it made it more....easy?

And what did they have to gain from killing themselves?

Probably nothing until they got into planes. That's why they didn't really do it much because, who wants to kill themselves? There wasn't anything to benefit from until thet turned themself into a bomb.

And the idea that the soul is hidden in the stomach was carried from europe to japan through the book on bushido.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2017, 12:42:52 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 12:35:21 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 29, 2017, 03:35:17 AM
Well to be fair, bushido was only created a few years before world war 1. It also was more propaganda to agenlicize samurai than actual rules they followed. It left a huge mark though and inspired the famous kamikaze attacks. It was the same in that pawns were the frontmen and the ones sacrificing to serve higher ups.

That's very interesting, Arturo, I didn't know that. It seems to be a little like religious martyrdom in a way.

Going back to this...the guy who literally wrote the book on Bushido actually studied english literature and writing. He wasn't really connected to Japan as much as I can see.

Though ritual suicide was already a thing for a long time, it wasn't used very much. People didn't want to die. When Bushido was published it made it more....easy?

And what did they have to gain from killing themselves?

Probably nothing until they got into planes. That's why they didn't really do it much because, who wants to kill themselves? There wasn't anything to benefit from until thet turned themself into a bomb.

And the idea that the soul is hidden in the stomach was carried from europe to japan through the book on bushido.

Well, muslim men in general seem to believe that they will get virgins in the afterlife if they die the death of a martyr; Christians believe their souls will live on in heaven; followers of bushido...?

The soul in in the stomach? :lol: I never heard that one before. Maybe because of gut feelings? :chin:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 12:53:13 AM
I think the idea was a bit more abstract. Like I said, samurai were angelucized through bushido. And people wanted to emulate them, or were forced to at least. The piolets were welded in.

And the gut feeling is somewhat familiar to me. It was over 100 years ago before we knew what really controlled the body (brain)
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2017, 01:14:22 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 12:53:13 AM
I think the idea was a bit more abstract. Like I said, samurai were angelucized through bushido. And people wanted to emulate them, or were forced to at least. The piolets were welded in.

And the gut feeling is somewhat familiar to me. It was over 100 years ago before we knew what really controlled the body (brain)

:secrets1: Maybe they were onto something (the Enteric Nervous System).  ;) 
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 03:32:45 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 30, 2017, 01:14:22 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 12:53:13 AM
I think the idea was a bit more abstract. Like I said, samurai were angelucized through bushido. And people wanted to emulate them, or were forced to at least. The piolets were welded in.

And the gut feeling is somewhat familiar to me. It was over 100 years ago before we knew what really controlled the body (brain)

:secrets1: Maybe they were onto something (the Enteric Nervous System).  ;)

Another thing that popped into my head that is similar is the concept of "having a good work ethic". It's a set of unspoken rules that govern our society to promote productivity. It has fanatical followers and preachers. Slaves that serve the higher ups...

It even has a messiah (donald trump). And people cling to it without reason. I could see some people being so into it that they form small communities divoted to it when it becomes out dated or replaced in some way.

Same happened with the amish.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 30, 2017, 04:39:28 PM
Hmm, "fanaticism" and "obsession" and "compulsion". Just listened to av radio prog, by Claudia Hammond, the BBC's main presenter on matters mental (and whom I hold in some regard), admitting she is a dedicated "step counter", feeling guilty if she does not achieve her 10 000 steps a day. She introduced it as, "I am Claudia Hammond and I count my steps," a near parallel to the AA's stsndard intro. And a tacit admission to doing something slightly guilty making? It seems there sre a lot of step counters, apart from the less electronically metricated, but still fanatical/obsessed/compelled, keepers fit (  :grin: )

"Workaholism" is, presumably, one or all of the above descriptors, depending on the base motive - are you doing it because god told you to, because it is a learhed thing, because it is a symptom of a mental condition . . . ? So, could it be the case that the holy books use what, since it is so common if you  include every type, is evidently a human evolutionary/genetic trait for their own purposes? OK, so do political leaders and inspirational managers and . . .

I wonder if de-culting uses similar "treatment" techniques as, say, those for compulsive obssesive disorder/behaviour?
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 06:18:24 PM
That's a good point about the holy books Gloucester. I would take it one step further and say it might emcourage workaholism. I have wondered if religion even encourages mental illness. Seeing the "signs" or "hearing god". Some native americans get their religious insight from taking drugs and for some it is a rite of passage. New agers have similar experiences, especially on lsd.

As for asian religions I am not so sure. Workaholism could still be an issue but manifested differently in the mind. Some claim to see visions, ect.

I like where you were going with that Gloucester. I agree 99%
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 30, 2017, 06:37:53 PM
Quote from: Arturo on August 30, 2017, 06:18:24 PM
That's a good point about the holy books Gloucester. I would take it one step further and say it might emcourage workaholism. I have wondered if religion even encourages mental illness. Seeing the "signs" or "hearing god". Some native americans get their religious insight from taking drugs and for some it is a rite of passage. New agers have similar experiences, especially on lsd.

As for asian religions I am not so sure. Workaholism could still be an issue but manifested differently in the mind. Some claim to see visions, ect.

I like where you were going with that Gloucester. I agree 99%

I was only using workaholism  as an example, to sort of link with your post. The Puritan "work ethic", "The devil finds work for idle hands (so make sure you are doing good work)," is probably not unique to them. Otherwise one or more of those three "cinditions" I listed can be found in almost any belief system, even humanists get a bit obsessed with humanity at times and some atheists get obessed with being aggressively anti-theist.

Then there's a whole bunch of people who, for no rational reason that I can detect, get obsessed with their bodily condition and feel guilty if they miss a workout!  :grin:
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: No one on August 30, 2017, 10:43:24 PM
People believe in this nonsense because their delicate egos need to be stroked. They are also too lazy to think for themselves. With just a smidgen of legwork, they'll realize the foundation of their beliefs will not withstand the weight of the scrutiny. I think I was about 8 when I realized it was all a big steaming pile of rancid horseshit.   
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 31, 2017, 01:06:35 AM
Yeah it's (workaholism) definitely tied to other things besides religion. The kamikaze is an extreme example.

That guilty feeling when missing a workout is one thing I am guilty of. Probably the only thing of that nature.

One thing though is that the problem with being a workaholic, and I know this from being a lifter, that doing too much will ultimately be unproductive. Your body and mind cannot handle it. And if you do too much for too long, the damage will be permanent.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 31, 2017, 05:49:06 AM
Quote from: Arturo on August 31, 2017, 01:06:35 AM
Yeah it's (workaholism) definitely tied to other things besides religion. The kamikaze is an extreme example.

That guilty feeling after a workout is one thing I am guilty of. Probably the only thing of that nature.

One thing though is that the problem with being a workaholic, and I know this from being a lifter, that doing too much will ultimately be unproductive. Your body and mind cannot handle it. And if you do too much for too long, the damage will be permanent.

"...guilty feeling after a workout..." ? Thought it was supposed to give you a rush! I was talking about the obsessive need to workout.

In the "overdoing it" aspect; in that programme about counting steps it was said the "traditional" 10 000 steps/day is a hangover from the Uspanese name of one of the first step counters in the 60s. In fact the first hundred or so are the most important and the benefit drops off after much less than 10 000. The longer walk might improve stamina but that is all.

@ No one: I think the problem is genetic, some are simply incapale of independant thought in this respect - I have met capable nanagers, leaders, who cannot handle life without the concept of god, of a figure who is the source (they think) of good. Then again I have met god bothering bosses who are utter bastards!
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on August 31, 2017, 06:54:14 AM
For those who have read "The Prince" : is there any mention of "respect" in there? One may respect a person and dislike them at the same time, e.g. - I dislike my cardiac consultant's "superior" attitude (which I suspect shields feelings of inferiority) but have to respect his skills as an electrophysiologist.

I am of the school that believes true respect can only be gained via demonstration, never through any kind of fear. You do not really respect a person for his/her position, only for their deeds. Thus the Abrahamic god is, at best, suffering a split personality, is not to be relied on. With a human one can still respect the rights of such a personality. With a deity one might suspect the sanity of those who respect that entity's recorded point of view, er, religiously.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on August 31, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
Whoops. Meant to put "if i miss a workout"
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on September 01, 2017, 01:36:02 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on August 31, 2017, 06:54:14 AM
For those who have read "The Prince" : is there any mention of "respect" in there? One may respect a person and dislike them at the same time, e.g. - I dislike my cardiac consultant's "superior" attitude (which I suspect shields feelings of inferiority) but have to respect his skills as an electrophysiologist.

I am of the school that believes true respect can only be gained via demonstration, never through any kind of fear. You do not really respect a person for his/her position, only for their deeds. Thus the Abrahamic god is, at best, suffering a split personality, is not to be relied on. With a human one can still respect the rights of such a personality. With a deity one might suspect the sanity of those who respect that entity's recorded point of view, er, religiously.

Machiavelli does go into reputation and how it's important that the ruler not be hated or held in contempt.

From chapter 19:

QuoteNow, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches.

It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get round him.

...

Fear would be a form of respect as well, wouldn't it? Fear is ok, hate is not.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Arturo on September 01, 2017, 02:09:33 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx
Fear would be a form of respect as well, wouldn't it? Fear is ok, hate is not.

Who do you think people respect more: Kim Jung Un or Donald Truck.

Also many things you are mentioning in the book SP remind me of "The 48 Laws Of Power". Essentially verbatim.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: xSilverPhinx on September 01, 2017, 03:25:58 AM
Robert Greene's book?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41ILsjEMw-L._SX356_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

Undoubtedly The Prince must be one of the many texts he read in order to write that book.
Title: Re: God's Character and Machiavelli's 'The Prince'
Post by: Dave on September 01, 2017, 07:36:31 AM

QuoteFear would be a form of respect as well, wouldn't it? Fear is ok, hate is not.
Well, Silver, in my mind fear has no positive effect on those who suffer it - you may not "get the best out of them". Respect can be a "double positive"  because, if earned, it usually goes both ways - thus you have a "willing worker".

But, certainly, from the bosses pov fear is better than hate. Fear cows whereas hate may foment rebellion.