Religion: pros & cons pt1 (Religion)

by dhw, Thursday, October 30, 2014, 15:00 (3675 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Like yourself, Tony, I've had to select passages as I don't want to divide this into two parts.-TONY: Consider God from the perspective of being a ruler. If he doesn't allow free will, he is a dictator. If he does allow free will, but allows for no possibility to choose something other than him, then free will is an illusion. So A) In order for free will to be possible, there had to be a choice. Breaking the law has a penalty.-I have no problem with free will. But your God in his infinite wisdom would have known the choice Adam and Eve would make, so why the outrage? And punishing the whole human race for a crime committed by the first humans is not my idea of justice. I say “your God” because this is not a criticism of God. It's a criticism of a particular vision of God. 
 
DHW:I don't accept that we die because we're sinners. I don't believe human bodies would have survived intact for ever. 
TONY: So you could believe that he could create the universe, or design intelligent cells from scratch that would make all of evolution possible, but you doubt his ability to sustain life?-No, I doubt your interpretation of sin and death. If I believed in God, I'd believe he created matter to be in a constant state of change. Permanence would be boring! Life, change and death are part of the endlessly shifting pattern. -DHW: Weren't Adam and Eve meant to have children? Wouldn't they all have grown older?
TONY: They would have matured, yes, but not aged in the terms that we think of today. They would have remained healthy and vibrant. -Imagine if Adam and Eve had not “sinned!” and their descendants had lived for ever, we would now have a planet overloaded with zillions and zillions of humans. But your God knew that wouldn't happen.
 
DHW: So why this constant harping on about how bad we are and undeserving of his love? [...] 
TONY: It is NOT just constant harping on the wrong things we do, at least not in the bible. Yes, it talks about the bad things to make them evident [...]It also praises the good things that are done and the people that remained faithful.-We're talking about sin and the sacrifice of Christ “for our sakes”, and I'm questioning the emphasis on badness and the need for redemption. You say later that you don't think most people are bad. Nor do I. I can only remember meeting two people who ended up in prison. The atheists and agnostics I know live thoroughly decent lives. If God does exist, I'm sure we'll all genuinely repent our ignorance. Otherwise my own mistakes or thoughtless, selfish actions remain on my conscience, and that's my punishment. Did Christ have to die in order for God to forgive me? -dhw: I don't believe that the zillions of humans will be resurrected (at what age and in what state?), or that we're to be killed off again afterwards.
TONY: No, most likely only about 10 Billion, realistically, not much more than what we have today. -Sorry, but you're analysing John's vision. Eben Alexander was brain dead, and found himself in a world of incredible beauty, with a woman he later discovered was the sister he'd never met. Why should I discount his version of death and accept John's? -TONY: I do not think you a bad person. I don't think most people are "bad" people. I think they, like you, carry wounds, pain, suffering, doubt, and a great many other negative experiences that make it difficult for you to believe in the love and mercy of God.-I doubt if most people's suffering has anything to do with their so-called sinfulness. In fact religion seems to have a greater hold among the suffering poor than among the rich and comfortable. But you're right, the negatives cast doubt on the rosy image.-TONY: Is it so difficult to show appreciation for all the GOOD things, instead of merely condemning him for the bad things that he did not do?-It's difficult to say thank you to something that might not even be there, let alone listening. Similarly, I can't condemn something that might not be there. Much of the suffering is caused by human behaviour, but much is not, and if God exists, I can see no reason to accept your view of his nature. This is a faith-bound interpretation of unreliable texts and it doesn't conform to the image I take both from the texts and from the world around me. But my picture is hopelessly complex and blurred (typically agnostic!) because it's a mixture of good and bad, unsolved mysteries, endless change, birth and death, mystical experiences, impersonal Nature, one god, many gods, no gods, love, fear, cruelty, indifference, beauty...If God is the mind of the universe, I can't read it, and I don't think anyone else can. But maybe the universe doesn't have a mind.