Tony\'s God (Introduction)
Dhw: My theological question concerns the nature of a creator who invents killing as a means of survival.
By "predatory self-interest" I mean pursuing one’s own ends regardless of the effects on others. I find it difficult to think of any sort of evil that does not follow this pattern, as laid down long before humans brought it to such a fine art.
TONY: Ok, so let's dig a little deeper here. Now, since we are discussing the topic in a religious context, I think it is fitting to examine the accounts of religions, whether we agree with them or not.
I’ve opened a new thread on the assumption that you would not want your God to be mixed up with Abel’s gods! I hope we now know each other well enough for you not to take offence at what follows. I’m an ignorant agnostic, and can only explain why I don’t share other people’s beliefs. I do, however, respect them. You give us an account of Cain and Abel making their sacrifices to God (the “fruit of the ground†and “the firstlings of his flock†respectively).
TONY: So, sacrificing something that you are supposed to have caring relationship with held greater value than sacrificing your food. This gives insight into the nature of the mind of the Abrahamic god.
It certainly does. First of all, let’s remind ourselves that it was God who planted the tree of good and evil, so it was God who invented the concept of evil. Since he was the “first causeâ€, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask how he could be aware of something that wasn’t already part of himself. Secondly, you say that Cain “wanted favor (i.e. glory) and was willing to kill to get it.†That is exactly the argument I would use against Abel. And the fact that God was pleased to see the blood of the lamb(s) gives me the shivers. In passing, let me also say that a tiller of land has to work just as hard as a shepherd, so I have a great deal of sympathy with Cain – though not, of course, over the subsequent murder, which is unforgivable. You say later that “sacrifices weren’t required prior to sinâ€. I really don’t know why sacrifices were required in the first place, other than to appeal to God’s vanity.
You go on to agree with my equation of sin with predatory self-interest, and in the context of the human condition you’ve offered us a brilliant aphorism which I shall quote because I like it so much: “Predatory self-interest is a perversion of rational self interest. Rational self interest is required for life to sustain itself.†You then argue that this “function†(presumably sin?) is “necessaryâ€. You go on to talk of homeostasis, and if by this you mean that good needs bad, that black needs white, that virtue needs sin, I agree. And I agree that humans have interfered with “the natural balance of thingsâ€, to a point at which Nature itself is under threat (e.g. all the endangered species). My starting-point, though, is what this tells us about the nature of God himself, if he exists. You have referred to Genesis, which tells us that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.†What is there, then, to counter the argument that the human world is a reflection of its creator, with the same homeostatic mixture of good and evil that he himself created in Eden? The story of the sacrifices, like that of the flood with its indiscriminate slaughter even of children, the appalling demand made of Abraham, the deliberate hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the torment of Job etc. – all of these suggest a God obsessed with his own power and glory, balanced of course by his acts of love and kindness, not the least of which is the gift of life itself. However, if one discounts the man-made stories of the Bible, and simply observes the sheer beauty balanced by the sheer horror of our world, one might well conclude that it has been left entirely to itself. If God exists, he and humans may well share their capacity for good and evil, along with an equal capacity for indifference.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 18:40 (4731 days ago) @ dhw
I’ve opened a new thread on the assumption that you would not want your God to be mixed up with Abel’s gods! I hope we now know each other well enough for you not to take offence at what follows. I’m an ignorant agnostic, and can only explain why I don’t share other people’s beliefs. I do, however, respect them. You give us an account of Cain and Abel making their sacrifices to God (the “fruit of the ground†and “the firstlings of his flock†respectively).
Thank you, and no offense taken at all.
DHW
It certainly does. First of all, let’s remind ourselves that it was God who planted the tree of good and evil, so it was God who invented the concept of evil.
I feel compelled to correct you on this point. In the Judeo-Christian belief system the tree itself was NOT the tree of good and evil. Secondly, there were two trees. The first was the tree of knowledge, and the second was the tree of life. The tree of knowledge supposedly 'opened their eyes so that they became like Gods(note the plurality), knowing the difference between good and evil.
DHW
Since he was the “first causeâ€, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask how he could be aware of something that wasn’t already part of himself.
Good and Evil, as we think of them, are entirely human ideas. For example, death of a creature may or may not be evil, but if you ask a member of PETA, it most certainly would be called evil. This disparity between what is evil and what is considered evil is actually quite nicely illustrated in the account. If you consider that immediately after they 'ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge' they realized that they were naked and became ashamed. Consider the connotations of that simple statement. Their entire life prior to that, they were naked, and yet they were considered innocent, pure, and had committed no sin. Yet, after they got a taste of limited knowledge, they thought being naked was wrong. Notice, that it didn't say it WAS wrong, it said they saw it as wrong. The entire account is about the arrogance of human knowledge, and the suffering that is caused when we place our own ideals over the ideals of God.
Secondly, you say that Cain “wanted favor (i.e. glory) and was willing to kill to get it.†That is exactly the argument I would use against Abel. And the fact that God was pleased to see the blood of the lamb(s) gives me the shivers. In passing, let me also say that a tiller of land has to work just as hard as a shepherd, so I have a great deal of sympathy with Cain – though not, of course, over the subsequent murder, which is unforgivable. You say later that “sacrifices weren’t required prior to sinâ€. I really don’t know why sacrifices were required in the first place, other than to appeal to God’s vanity.
Honestly, the question of sacrifice is one I have had myself, but for different reasons. The though of sacrificing a lamb and presenting it as a gift to god is no more offensive than coming over to visit you and bringing you a well baked juicy brisket. Secondly, you are doing here what I mentioned in my response above. You have a pre-conceived notion of what good and evil is, with incomplete knowledge(no offense, we all suffer from that condition), and you are using it to cast judgment. This is the ultimate folly in every biblical account, echoed in the supposed words of Jesus, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do." As for why the sacrifice is needed, think of it as a token of apology. Imagine if you will, that you had the most precious thing in existence. Magnaminously, you decide to share that precious thing with someone. Of course, having incredibly intimate knowledge of this thing which they do not, you tell them that if they will be patient, you will tell them everything they need to know to enjoy this thing for their entire life. And then they pee on your shoes and spoil the precious gift that you have given them with the backsplatter. I would imagine that you would be pretty insulted, no? I would also imagine, that any of their kin who knew about this, and were good, upright people, would try to offer some sort of apology. Knowing that there was nothing thing could give you to make up for what was lost, they would simply do the best they could. To me, that is the idea behind sacrifice. Humanity peed on gods sandals, and the good parts of the family tried to apologize for it.
I will answer your last paragraph in my next post, because I think the answer will be quite lengthy.
Thanks for a great discussion, as always.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 19:37 (4731 days ago) @ dhw
Just like predatory self-interest is a perverted reflection of what rational self-interest is, the world of man, our societies, our creations, are a perversion of what the original designer had in mind. Consider by way of pathectically over simplified analogy the man who engineerd the first car to be 'pimped out' with lift kits, hydraulics, low profile tires, a stereo so loud that it rattles the fittings. To the person who modified the car what they created is simply AWESOME. They love it. They think it is the best think since sliced bread. To people around them that have a idea of what the original intention and design of the vehicle was, it seems ludicrous and wasteful. The designer though... It would probably move the designer to tears to see this high performance machine that he has built mutilated. In his designs, be probably calculated weights, fuel efficiency, horse power, torque, gear ratios, optimal tire sizes; he probably new every last nut and bolt that went into it. Not only that, but the designer was probably also intimately familiar with the laws of physics that governed the operation of this vehicle. Friction, wind resistence, energy, motion, the way to convert one to the other. Where as the owner of the vehicle that modified it was not only unaware of these things, but did not care about them and had no respect for them or the subsequent impact on ancilliary things.
So, while you could argue that the 'pimped-out' automobile was the work of the designer, you would ultimately have to admit that a statement like that could only be said to be true until the new owner of the car decided to change the design to the way he saw fit. To take the analogy one step further, in this case, the designer offered the owner an apprenticeship. He told the guy that he would teach him everything he needed to know if the owner would take the time to learn. This is precisely what is described in Genesis. God designed the perfect system, with all the little bits and bobs, bells and whistles accounted for and finely tuned. Humans thought they could do better without bothering to learn, and set about trying to redesign it.
You pose a lot of different stories here, and you leave out a vast number of significant details. I am not attempting to be appologetic for any of these events, but I feel that the details should be presented in a more balanced light than what you have done.
In the case of Abraham, it was a test of worth. If God and his son were going to endure a lot of suffering for the sake of these people, they wanted to know the they were commited to doing whatever needed to be done. Note that he did in fact stop Abraham once Abraham and Issaac proved that they were willing to sacrifice in order to see it through.
In the case of Job, the story says that God had sheltered him his entire life, and thus Job had become a very wealthy and prosperous person. The insuation was thrown out that, basically, Job was a sycophant. Kissing butt for the sake of the rewards. God didn't punish job, he simply removed his protection in order to prove his loyalty. In a sense, you can almost say that God felt pity or guilt over the need to do this, as exemplified by the fact that he rewarded Job for his loyalty tenfold after the test was over. It is also interesting to note that even when he removed his protection, he didn't remove it completely. The trial of faith that Job was to undergo would not be allowed to take Job's life.
In the case of Pharaoh, the nation of Isreal had repeatedly turned away. Now, these people had a long standing contract with God. That contract started with Abraham, and was to be adhered to by all of his decendents until the birth of Christ, which was the fullfillment of the contract. In return, the provisions of the contract entitled Isreal to protection. They tried to renig on the contract, and God saw fit to remind them of why they shouldn't go back on their part of a deal. Now, if this same scenario had happened in the business world, and the G Company sued I Company publically, and then sent out a memo warning other businesses not to do business with I company because they refuse to fullfill their contracts, you would probably say that G Company did the right thing. But, in this case, it was actually much more subtle than that. In this case God KNEW that there was a famine coming that the Isrealites wouldn't be able to survive, and that the Isrealites were going to produce something in the future that was crucial to Gods plans. So God punished them by sending them into Egypt, and hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he wouldn't let them go. He did this, not to punish Israel, but to protect them from the famine. You can actually see the preparation for this when Joseph is sent into Egypt to prepare for the famine LONG before the Isrealites were taken into captivity. It was a masterful piece of maneuvering that protected Egypt and Isreal as well as serving as punishment for renigging on a contract.
So yes, from these events, you can say that you can infer some stuff about the mind of God, but certainly not that he did these things for his own pride.
I apologize about not including quotes, but the post was too long :P
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by DragonsHeart , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 19:58 (4731 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Speaking of the sacrifices made by Cain and Abel
Abel's sacrifice was of the first born of the flock, the fattest lambs. It is not mentioned that Cain's were the first-fruits..it was just that Cain proceeded to bring "some" fruits. Cain saved the best for himself, while Abel offered the best to God. Would you want someone to give you a gift that obviously was only because they felt obligated and had no real desire to give it, so they just gave you whatever?
As far as Abraham and Isaac, Tony, it wasn't so much that God wanted to know that they were WILLING to sacrifice, rather, it was a test of Abraham's faith. It was after this incident that Abraham was blessed and told that God would multiply his seed like the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the seashore, and his seed would take possession of the gates of his enemies.
Job was certainly blessed by God, and God allowed Satan to take away his children, his lands, his livestock. He was covered in a boil from head to foot, and yet did not curse the name of God. In turn, all that he had was restored to him(not the same seven daughters and 3 sons, but he was given more children).
I do agree with Tony's thoughts on the Israelites in Egypt though, and the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. God protected His chosen people, but had to allow them to endure hardships for many generations before they reached the Promised Land. But it was a later Pharaoh's heart that hardened. It was Ramses II, who was Pharaoh during the time of Moses and the Exodus. It was required to prove to the Israelites that Moses HAD been sent to be their deliverer out of Egypt.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 20:16 (4731 days ago) @ DragonsHeart
Casey
As far as Abraham and Isaac, Tony, it wasn't so much that God wanted to know that they were WILLING to sacrifice, rather, it was a test of Abraham's faith. It was after this incident that Abraham was blessed and told that God would multiply his seed like the stars in the sky and the grains of sand on the seashore, and his seed would take possession of the gates of his enemies.
After talking this point over with you, I realized something else about this scenario that is particularly relevant to the discussion with DHW. The comment had been made and fairly well agreed upon that predatory self-interest was a perversion of Rational Self-Interest.
In a way, it seems like this story is setting those two ideas at counterpoint. let me explain:
Predatory Self-Interest would demand that Abraham keep Isaac alive(reproductive instincts) and that he continue his line through Isaac.
However, he was presented with another option. The Grand Designer told him that he needed to kill his first born. Something that is in direct contradiction to predatory self-interest in this case. Now, on the faith side of things, this meant that he had to believe there was a good reason. As you mentioned, he didn't receive that promise until later, so that wasn't a factor in the decision.
That only leaves trusting the Designer to know what is required in order for the grand design to work, and putting that design over the predatory self-interest of propagating his blood line.
Later, after it was all said in done, it can be said that, at least according to the story, he did what was in his own best Rational Self-Interest.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
PART ONE
TONY: […] the tree itself was NOT the tree of good and evil.
Thank you for correcting my careless mistake. King James version: “the tree of knowledge of good and evilâ€; New World Translation: “the tree of the knowledge of good and badâ€. I’m going to be stubborn, though, and argue that it doesn’t change anything. God could not have planted the tree if he himself had not known the difference between good and evil, and as the “first cause†he could not have known the difference if it had not already been part of himself.
TONY: Good and Evil, as we think of them, are entirely human ideas.
You are a very clever debater! “As we think of them†naturally makes the ideas human. You later say, quite rightly: “You have a preconceived notion of what good and evil is, with incomplete knowledge (no offense, we all suffer from that condition), and you are using it to cast judgment.†Let me put that together with your earlier comment on Adam & Eve: “The entire account is about the arrogance of human knowledge, and the suffering that is caused when we place our own ideals over the ideals of God.†If God exists, we do not and cannot know his ideals. We only have human interpretations of them. And so of course all concepts of good and evil are human, based on subjective codes that vary from one society to another – even from one individual to another – leading to preconceived notions and judgements passed accordingly. However, the fact that we have incomplete knowledge and preconceived notions does not counter the argument that God created good and evil. We just don’t know how far our own concepts coincide with his. Having said that, though, there is a general consensus concerning a number of “evilsâ€. I don’t know of any societies that condone murder, rape, robbery, for instance. And finally on this point, I must stick in my humanist oar and say that most concepts of good and evil are based on what is useful for society in general. We do not need human interpretations of God’s ideals to establish these codes.
As for peeing on God’s sandals, it was Adam and Eve, not Abel and Cain that did that. There is no indication in the bible of the motive for the sacrifice – it just seems to be taken for granted that they would make it. In your earlier words, Cain wanted favour (glory), and in my earlier words, so did Abel. Abel got it (in my modern translation, God “was looking with favor upon Abel and his offeringâ€) and much good it did him! If this interpretation is correct, currying favour is the motive, and God is open to offers. I agree with Casey (DH) that Abraham’s ordeal was a test of faith, and God is obviously delighted to prove Satan wrong when it comes to testing Job’s faith – all of which makes me ask why God is so concerned that people should prove how much they love and trust him. You have offered an analogy between God and a car designer. Let me take up your second analogy instead. I hope my children love me and trust me. What sort of father would I be if I made them prove it through sacrifices and ordeals? I’d deserve to be thrown into jail or a lunatic asylum if I asked my younger son to cut my grandson’s throat (even if I sent a messenger to stop him) – and my son would deserve the same if he agreed to do it. You can come up with as many long-term strategies as you like, but such interpretations have no more authority than this one. It’s the same story with Pharaoh: God sends his plagues, the last of which entails killing the firstborn of every Egyptian (as with the flood, indiscriminate slaughter). How this protected the Israelites from the famine I don’t know. God’s motive? How about: “That ye may know how that I am the Lord.†(Exodus, 10 ii), or “...the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’ (Exodus, 11 ix). An exhibition of raw power at the expense of helpless kids.
But you are a genuine (and excellent) attorney for the defence, whereas I am merely playing the role of prosecutor. I must now jump out of this role for a moment to emphasize that while you believe “the vast majority†of what you read in the bible, I see no reason to do so. This is a collection of books written by fallible and often anonymous authors – sometimes centuries if not millennia after the events they either describe or fabricate – and interpreted by equally fallible translators and readers. Some of the stories may indeed be consistent with those of other cultures – humans like to use stories to explain mysteries, disasters and natural phenomena, many of which the various cultures have in common. Perhaps all religions have their share of the truth, whatever that may be. Maybe even Abel’s theology is true, and he just can’t express it as coherently as Moses, Matthew or Mohammed. But I need a lot more than assurances from a believer that the story-tellers are all telling the truth.
(Contd. in Part Two)
Tony\'s God
PART TWO
Back to my prosecutor’s role. You see all of these events as part of a grand design, leading to the fulfilment of God’s “contract†through Jesus Christ. God knows what’s coming and is preparing the way (although his knowledge doesn’t extend to the strength of Abraham’s faith, which has to be tested first). In earlier discussions – and let me hasten to say that I find our discussions extremely stimulating and informative – as well as in this latest post, you appear to see our world as a once perfect design now in the process of being wrecked by us humans. I agree with you that humans are messing it up. And I also agree with you that “humanity is learning the hard way that we are incapable of ruling ourselves in a manner that is good†– although of course we both know that our judgement of what is “good†is subjective, based on preconceived notions etc. But I do not see the world as being perfectly designed. We have had this discussion before, and will have to agree to differ. You believe, as David does, that everything from the beginning had a purpose, whereas I see the evolution of our world as a higgledy-piggledy movement through a mass of random comings and goings – which I summarized once as the Dodo Problem. If there is a God, I would interpret this as a sign that either he made things up as he went along, or he had an idea of what he wanted, but didn’t know how to realize it. In both cases, I then ask myself what was his motive for creating life in the first place? This is where my (speculative) interpretation of the bible converges with my (speculative) interpretation of events on Earth, leading to the following (speculative) scenario. The creation was for his own benefit, entertainment, self-gratification, self-expression, satisfaction of curiosity – not unlike the human artists and scientists made in his image – and we are a spectacle for him, a pastime to occupy his long and lonely eternity. Maybe he’ll even love some of us, and he’ll also enjoy being worshipped, but the spectacle has to keep changing or he’ll get bored. He may even have got bored already, and given up. Your vision is of a caring, loving God, as derived from your interpretation of the bible and the world as you see it. The vision I’m presenting is derived from the world and its history as I see it, and it fits in perfectly with the design theory (there is a god) but also with the chance theory (there is no god). An indifferent god and a godless Nature require no further explanation of higgledy-piggledy evolution, mass extinctions, natural disasters, diseases and other non-human catastrophes, and we do not even have to explain the origin of evil (such a headache for theologians). This notion is preconceived, in that it imposes a pattern on a world imperfectly known, but I’m afraid that applies in equal measure to all notions of God and the world, including of course your own.
That is the case for the prosecution, Your Honour. But don’t ask me if I believe it.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 22:40 (4730 days ago) @ dhw
Your Honor, since the prosecution has chosen to go with my analogy of a parent, I will try to stick with that analogy, and further it along.
DHW
God could not have planted the tree if he himself had not known the difference between good and evil, and as the “first cause†he could not have known the difference if it had not already been part of himself.
Absolutely correct. In God, all things are possible, great and small, good and evil. What separates him is that he possesses the ultimate knowledge, complete information, and the wisdom to make a proper determination between what is good and evil, and how to avoid doing evil things. Much like a parent who knows the the potential for badness and harm, God is also aware of them. Now, consider for a moment, that God lives in a different plane of existence, or different state of existence(whichever you perfer). In this way, he is also like a parent, who to a childs eyes, lives in a completely different world full of exciting possibilities. Like a parent, God is aware that what is ok for an adult is not necessarily ok for a child. That is not to say that it will never be ok for the child, but rather that before the child should be allowed to do those things, they must be taught the proper way to go about them. For example, playing with electricity. To a child, you do not say anything about moving electrons, insulation, grounding, or live wire, isolation, circuits, transistor, resistor, or anything of the sort. You say, "Don't play with the light socket. That's bad, it will hurt you." Now, a master engineer can take that 'bad' thing of electricity, and do wonderous things with it, and do them safely, because he has the knowledge and wisdom to do so. We are like the children. We think in terms of absolutes. Good, evil, right wrong. God is like the adult, and understands that there is a time and place for things, and a way to do them safely, and how to moderate his actions so as not to unintentionally hurt others. Also, like children, when parents tell us something is 'bad' and we see them do it themselves without the full understanding of why, how, and when that thing is appropriate, we talk crap about them being hypocrites and bad parents and all that, and in extreme cases perhaps even call child services to remove ourselves from their care. After all, the grass is always greener on the other side.
DHW
"..there is a general consensus concerning a number of “evilsâ€." ..".We do not need human interpretations of God’s ideals to establish these codes."
There was also a general concensus that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that the atom was the smallest particle. The thing about general consensus is that it is generally wrong, and normally subject to the fatal flaw of incomplete information. As for interpretation, you are absolutely correct in saying that we don't need interpretation, instead, we need observation. The animal kingdom is a fine place to observe those ideals in a manner that needs no interpretation.(That is an entirely other conversation though)
cont..
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 22:43 (4730 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
Why God is so concerned that people should prove how much they love and trust him?
By extension, I will also include in this answer the answer to the question, "Why should God care if we worship him?"
Before we begin this answer, lets first clarify the meaning of worship, as the meaning of this word is critical in understanding the importance of it.
Worship - adoring reverance or regard, to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
The biblical description of Worship is broken into three main parts:
Humility - The Hebrew word is shaha…, and the Greek word is proskuneo. The outward posture that reflects an inner attitude of humility and respect.
Reverence - The Hebrew word is yare…, and the Greek term is sebomai. The idea of both the Greek and the Hebrew is that of fearing God. It is not so much the fear of terror and dread so much as it is the fear of wonder and awe at the majesty and greatness of the infinite God.
Service - The Hebrew term, abad, and its Greek counterpart, latreuo…, denotes the idea ‘to work, to labor, or to serve.’
The reason that these definitions are so important, is because they take us all the way back to the beginning of God's relationship with man, and the crucial moment with the tree of knowledge. You mentioned in your response to Abel that you had been a teacher, and worked with some very bright students and professors. Now, if you had came into your classroom, and the first thing your student said was, "Up yours old fool, I already got this down pat. I can't learn a damn thing from you." Then the student is quite likely right, he would never, ever be able to learn anything from you because his cup is already overflowing and he is not willing to learn. In other words, he has no humility. He also displayed a lack of reverence for whatever you had to teach, and for your own experience and wisdom. Lastly, he demonstrated that he was not going to put any effort into learning anything you had to offer. Now, think about your children, and how your experience as a teacher no doubt impacted your relationship with them. In order for you children to take the things you said to heart and to be patient enough to wait for you to explain things in good time, they had to love and trust you. And like any parent, God wants, and deserves, our love. So, to sum this portion up, the importance behind God wantin our love, trust, and worship, is the same as the dynamic between a parent and child. Parents hope that their children love and trust them, and like any one who has ever been in the role of a teacher, needs the constiuent parts of worship, not for any self-gratifying reason, but as a necessary component to being able to confer knowledge and wisdom. You said it yourself, "I hope my children love me and trust me. "
DHW
What sort of father would I be if I made them prove it through sacrifices and ordeals?
The other day, my daughter approached her mother and asked for a gift. Specifically, she asked for a new pair of boots. Now, when her mother approached me about it, I could have said, "Go and buy those boots for her." Instead, I said, "Tell her that if she rakes the back yard you will pay her $20."(which was more than the cost of the boots.) What I did, was to made my daughter prove that those boots were worth working for, and therefore worth spending money on. Does that make me a bad parent worthy of "thrown into jail or a lunatic asylum." Now, you are arguing not the principal of making people prove things through sacrifice and ordeal, but the DEGREE of sacrifice. If you are going to argue the degree of the sacrifice, then you also have to argue the degree of the return. One mans life in order to set the stage for the redemption of man kind. Not only that, one fact I do appreciate about this is, God asked nothing of Abraham that he wasn't willing, and in fact DID, do himself. As to my choice of the word "Worth" instead of "Faith" in the tale of Abraham, it is because it was MORE than just faith that was required. It was faith and action. "Faith without works is dead."
DHW
As for peeing on God’s sandals, it was Adam and Eve, not Abel and Cain that did that.
In evolutionary terms, what happens to the parents is inherited by the children, not only in terms of what they inherit genetically, but also in terms of what parents teach their children. If a parent teaches their child something wrong, then the child will normally grow up to believe it, particularly if there is no one there to correct them. Considering that there was no one there to correct any mistake made in raising Cain and Abel by Adam and Eve, the Sons peed on Gods sandals just like the parents. This trend has continued on down through the generations to present day, and will continue long after you and I are dust in the Earth.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 22:45 (4730 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
It’s the same story with Pharaoh: God sends his plagues, the last of which entails killing the firstborn of every Egyptian (as with the flood, indiscriminate slaughter). How this protected the Israelites from the famine I don’t know. God’s motive? How about: “That ye may know how that I am the Lord.†(Exodus, 10 ii), or “...the Lord said unto Moses, ‘Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.’ (Exodus, 11 ix). An exhibition of raw power at the expense of helpless kids.
Ah, the kid arguments. I love these because people get so wrapped up emotionally in them. So let's stop for a moment, and try to unwrap the emotional baggage long enough to take a long view of the situation.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him
Acts 24:15 ..there shall certainly be a ressurection of the righteous and the unrighteous.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, in your view, what he did was evil. Lets consider it from the biblical perspective, though. God is the giver of life; since original sin, life has become increasingly harder and more of a struggle; the dead are concious of nothing, neither time nor place nor action; there will be a resurrection into a new world of both the righteous and the unrighteous where they will have a chance to learn Gods ways on their own and then make an informed choice over which master they will serve.
While this certainly sounds like a harsh thing to say, what God did could be seen as sparing them the problems of this life, and fast tracking them on the road to a better life. Now, all of this assumes that the biblical account is true and accurate.(Including your own arguments against God)
DHW
I need a lot more than assurances from a believer that the story-tellers are all telling the truth.
And who can blame you? At 15, I need a lot more assurance, which is why I left religion behind and went my own way. In the last 15 years I have seen enough to make a believer out of me. Now, all I am trying to do is refine my knowledge and my faith. I do not think that the bible as it has been handed down to us is infallible. That is why I study other religions, other cultures, seeking the truth. I may not ever find it, I may not know it if I do find it. But I will continue looking. :)
DHW
His knowledge doesn’t extend to the strength of Abraham’s faith, which has to be tested first.
He knew Abraham had faith, he needed to know whether, when confronted with a choice, Abraham would follow that faith with action. Humans do have free will, we have the right and the ability to choose.
As for your closing arguments:
If the answer for why God created everything was simply "Because he could, and he wanted to." or "Because he was bored, and he wanted to.", or even if it was "Because I am alone, and lonely.", would that denigrate his work, his accomplishments, and his feelings towards what he has done? You might buy a dog if you are alone and lonely. You might even build it its own dog house for outside and a warm bed for inside. You might even give it a bowl for food and water and a little doggy flap so that it can go inside and out at will. Do ANY of these things mean that you do not love your dog? Does the fact that you orignally got the dog because you were bored or lonely mean that you love your dog less now than if it were for some altruistic reason? Of course not. The bottom line is, who cares WHY he started creation. What matters is that after he decided to start, he showed great care and consideration for absolutely every aspect of it. We would call this love. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." What better reason is there than that?
As for all the Higgly-Piggly, put yourself in the shoes of a cave man trying to learn electronics. It would all seem like "Higgly-Piggly" to you because you would lack the pre-requisite knowledge, wisdom, and the proper frame of reference in order to make sense of it all. If we are cavemen, then life, nature, and the universe is your electronics. We do not have the pre-requisite knowledge, wisdom, or frame of reference to say what was and wasn't necessary or logical, or sensical.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
Tony has given a detailed response to my “case for the prosecutionâ€. I will try to keep my responses to the responses as brief as possible.
EVIL:
TONY: In God all things are possible, great and small, good and evil. What separates him is that he possesses the ultimate knowledge, complete information, and the wisdom to make a proper determination between what is good and evil.
My aim was to prove that God and not humans created evil, which you have accepted. What you call a “proper determination†is almost tautological, because he makes the rules and sets the criteria, so if he says it’s proper to slaughter kids, it’s proper,
CONSENSUS
Dhw: ...there is a general consensus concerning a number of “evilsâ€. (I mentioned murder, rape and robbery.)
TONY: The thing about general consensus is that it is generally wrong, and normally subject to the fatal flaw of incomplete information.
So murder, rape and robbery are likely to be OK in God’s eyes? As prosecuting counsel, I once again draw your attention to God’s indiscriminate slaughter by flood, and by killing the firstborn of all Egyptians. If he says it’s proper, it’s proper, but it ain’t my idea of proper. If members of the jury agree with you, we shall have to change our laws.
WORSHIP
TONY: In order for your children to take the things you said to heart [...] they had to love and trust you. And like any parent, God wants, and deserves, our love.
[God] needs the constituent parts of worship, not for any self-gratifying reason, but as a necessary component to being able to confer knowledge and wisdom.
Parents don’t deserve love because they are parents. They have to earn love. There are millions of parents who are hated by their kids. As a parent and teacher, I did not tell anyone to prove their love and trust before conferring what little knowledge and wisdom I had on them. I gave them what I could, and that was how I earned their love and trust. (I hope!)
SACRIFICE
You made your daughter earn her boots. Good for you. But you were not testing her love, or her faith that Daddy knows best even if what you asked was something appalling (which of course it wasn’t). You were teaching her that we have to work for what we want – an excellent lesson for life. What lesson for life was God teaching Abraham when he told him to slit his son’s throat?
PEEING ON GOD’S SANDALS
TONY: In evolutionary terms, what happens to the parents is inherited by the children.
In biblical terms, as quoted by my learned friend the Counsel for the Defence, “The son will not share the guilt of the father†(Ezekiel 18:20).There’s no evidence in your bible that Abel and Cain peed on God’s sandals, and since Abel was such a goodie and found favour in God’s eyes, I don’t see what grounds you have to say he did. I agree that Cain did (unforgivably), after God had shown his preference for the blood of innocent lambs over the hard-won, bloodless fruits of Cain’s labours.
KILLING KIDS
TONY: While this certainly sounds like a harsh thing to say, what God did could be seen as sparing them the problems of this life, and fast tracking them on the road to a better life.
Great. Then let’s kill everybody, to spare them the problems of this life. And let’s rewrite Exodus. Instead of “Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egyptâ€, let God say: “Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may kill all the kids and fast track them on a road to a better life.†Your Honour, I submit that the Counsel for the Defence is advocating mass extermination in the name of the Lord. And I don’t like the look in his eye.
GOD’S MOTIVE
TONY: Who cares WHY he started creation? What matters is that after he decided to start, he showed great care and consideration for absolutely every aspect of it. We would call this love.
This view, just like my alternative, is your preconceived pattern imposed on the world as you imperfectly know it. Your method, as summarized in your discussion with David, is “studying, theorizing, and basing whole bodies of work based off of indirect observation.†So is mine, and it leads to the opposite conclusion. I do not dispute the variety and beauty; I only dispute your vision of the perfect design and your justification for psychological torture and indiscriminate slaughter. You are right that “we do not have the pre-requisite knowledge, wisdom etc. to say what was necessary or logical, or sensicalâ€, to which I would add morally justifiable. That is what this trial is all about, and motive is directly relevant to our understanding of the alleged crimes. But you and I can ONLY debate the issues according to our (not just my) limited knowledge, and according to what WE see as right and wrong. The rest is up to the jury.
*******
An important personal note: I hope it’s clear to you that while these arguments do, I think, require an answer, I’m deliberately setting black against white. If I believed in God, my views would be very close to David’s wonderfully wise and balanced opinions as expressed in his posts to you on this thread.
Tony\'s God
by DragonsHeart , Monday, November 21, 2011, 18:04 (4729 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:
"God had shown his preference for the blood of innocent lambs over the hard-won, bloodless fruits of Cain’s labours."
Hard won? Hardly. They were essentially the leftovers after Cain took the first fruits(generally considered to be the "best") for himself. Genesis 4:3-5 clearly shows the difference..."And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits of the ground as an offering to Jehovah. But as for Abel, he too brought some firstlings of his flock, even their fatty pieces. Now while Jehovah was looking with favor upon Abel and his offering, he did not look with any favor upon Cain and upon his offering."
If Cain had offered the hard won fruits of his labor, he would have offered the best, and it would have been noted, as Abel's was. I know that if I am baking, and am taking some of what I bake as a gift to someone, I am going to take the ones that came out the best, not the burnt ones that I wouldn't even eat.
Tony\'s God
Dhw: God had shown his preference for the blood of innocent lambs over the hard-won, bloodless fruits of Cain’s labours.
CASEY (DragonsHeart): Hard won? Hardly. They were essentially the leftovers after Cain took the first fruits(generally considered to be the "best") for himself. Genesis 4:3-5 clearly shows the difference..."And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits of the ground as an offering to Jehovah. But as for Abel, he too brought some firstlings of his flock, even their fatty pieces. Now while Jehovah was looking with favor upon Abel and his offering, he did not look with any favor upon Cain and upon his offering." If Cain had offered the hard won fruits of his labor, he would have offered the best, and it would have been noted, as Abel's was. I know that if I am baking, and am taking some of what I bake as a gift to someone, I am going to take the ones that came out the best, not the burnt ones that I wouldn't even eat.
Your Honour, this is a travesty! The Counsel for the Prosecution is fabricating evidence! Here is the context of her quotation: “Now Adam had intercourse with Eve his wife and she became pregnant. In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.†Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel. And Abel came to be a herder of sheep, but Cain became a cultivator of ground. And it came about at the expiration of some time that Cain proceeded to bring some fruits….etc.â€
In time she gave birth…later…at the expiration of some time…Is it not self-evident, Your Honour, that it would take time for Kid Cain and Baby Aby to grow up, then to become shepherd and cultivator, and then to produce fruits and firstlings? That is what the text tells us. Time passed, that’s all. So where, oh where does it tell us that Cain offered God the leftovers, and that he took the best fruits for himself? Can you find one word to support this outrageous accusation?
But here’s an interesting point for the jury to ponder. Why does the narrator use the co-ordinating conjunction “but†before describing Cain’s profession. Why not “and� Could it be that the narrator has some sort of prejudice against ground-cultivators? And could it be that God shared that prejudice, which is why he did not look with any favour upon Cain as a person or upon Cain and his fruit? (Note that in both cases, the narrative separates person and offering.) This interpretation is merely a suggestion, but it does have the virtue – unlike the prosecution’s testimony – of being based on words in the text.
Your Honour, I’m not defending Cain’s murder of Abel, which is indefensible. But with regard to his taking the best fruit and handing the leftovers to God, may I suggest that the prosecutor henceforth call herself Y, because it is evident that she has no Case.
******
Thank you for the additional information about Thomas Love Peacock, and many apologies for my tactless comment about pithy rhyme! Incidentally, I once played the part of Raven the Butler in a dramatization of Nightmare Abbey. It was great fun!
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 17:49 (4728 days ago) @ dhw
I would like to submit as evidence several passages to support the argument.
First, I submit Genesis 1:26 Which implies an original purpose for mankind.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,b and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€
Note that there is no mention of "let them farm."
Secondly, this is reiterated in 1:28:
"God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
1:29 States that the plants were given as food, but as I shall show in a moment, this initially did not require cultivation. Also note that this also implies that all creatures were initially vegetarians. Also worth noting is that humans received special right to the seed bearing fruits.
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.†And it was so
3:17 States the case clearly that farming was a punishment:
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.â€
Genesis 4:2 Sets the stage to differentiate between what man *thinks* he should be doing, and doing what was originally purposed:
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.
What Cain offered was what was reaped from their PUNISHMENT, what Abel offered was from what was mans original PURPOSE to be doing in the first place. Also, what Cain offered was just 'some of the fruits', what Abel offered was the best of his best.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by DragonsHeart , Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 17:55 (4728 days ago) @ dhw
Genesis 3:17 states, "To the man he said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, 'Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life.'"
Cultivating the land was a punishment! The NAB also presents Gen 4:2 differently that I stated yesterday. It states: "Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of the flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil."
Because original sin had passed to the sons, the punishment did, as well. As Adam had to till the soil for the grains, his sons did also. Cain, for some reason unknown, possibly since he was the first-born, tilled the soil.
Is it reasonable to assume that, growing up, Cain and Abel heard how glorious the Garden of Eden was, and how their parents had been cast out? Notice also that it does not state how old Cain and Abel were at this time. If they were teenagers, with all the petulance that teenagers possess, then Cain might have given his offering grudgingly, and been upset when his offering was rejected while his brother's was favored.
Growing up, my sister and I were ALWAYS being compared to each other. In certain areas, I came out in more favor than she did, even though I was the younger sister. Did this hurt my sister? Of course it did. Granted, I am still alive to tell the tale.
*************
I had fun with the French, although it's been thirteen years since I studied the language. I owe a great deal of credit to my teacher. She taught me well.
Tony\'s God
The State versus Cain. The case so far: The prosecution have alleged that Cain did wilfully keep the best fruit for himself, and so God was quite right not to favour him. The defence have proved that there is no evidence for this allegation.
Next Session
The prosecution now offer a new translation (showing the unreliability of these texts), which says Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil, whereas Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The new translation provides no more evidence than the old ones. If I were a meat-eater (I’m not), the fat portions would be the last thing I’d want, but in any case, some fruit (which don’t have fat portions) versus fat portions from some firstborn does not prove that my client kept the best of the fruit for himself.
Clearly the prosecution are aware that they have no case against my client, and so they have now gone down a totally different route. They have produced one piece of evidence after another to demonstrate – I quote – “that farming was a punishmentâ€. Let us discount the irrationality of such an attitude (and let us apologize to all farmers) and concentrate solely on the facts. In order to wiggle round Ezekiel’s assurance that sons would not be punished for the sins of their fathers, the prosecution tell us that “because original sin had passed to the sons, the punishment did, as well.†One of my learned friends informed us earlier that this was also evolution at work – if the parents are sinful, automatically the children will be sinful too. I would like to think we live in more enlightened times, but the jury can make their own minds up about the truth and justice of such generalizations. The case for the defence is now as follows: if farming is a punishment, and sons cannot escape from the sins of their parents, how come Cain was made a farmer but Abel was made a shepherd – thereby, according to the prosecution, fulfilling man’s original purpose? The prosecution are putting the plough before the ox by assuming (without evidence) that Cain was a sinner, but even if he was, by their reasoning Abel was too, so why should Cain be punished, and not Abel? The texts quoted by the prosecution do nothing but reinforce the defence’s earlier hypothesis that the author and/or God himself had a prejudice not only against farming, but also against Cain as a person. The prosecutors’ desperation to blacken my client’s reputation is laid bare by their final thrust: “If they were teenagers, with all the petulance that teenagers possess, then Cain might have given his offering grudgingly.†Is “might have†the sort of evidence, Your Honour, that would justify convicting my client? The prosecution go on to say that Cain might also have “been upset when his offering was rejected while his brother’s was favored.†Not “might have been†– the text states categorically that he was: “And Cain was very wroth.†So are most victims of prejudice. And so would you be now if people said you kept the best for yourself (no evidence), you might have been sulky (no evidence), farming is a punishment and you deserved to be punished because you had naughty parents, but your brother who had the same parents didn’t deserve to be punished. God liked Abel and he didn’t like Cain. As one of the prosecutors points out, parents often have a particular favourite. Does that prove the less favoured one to be guilty?
Your Honour, this case is not about my client’s murder of Abel, which cannot be condoned, but the prosecution are making an ever stronger case against the powers-that-be for extreme provocation.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 20:38 (4727 days ago) @ dhw
Objection!
The evidence does not imply farming was a punishment, it clearly states it in the case of God vs. Adam and Eve!
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life."
If that is not a judgement and sentence than clearly I am unqualified to handle this case further. There is also precedent in human cases where convicts were sentenced to hard labor which could also be referred to as 'painful toil'. I see no reason to say that this is not precisely the sentence that was offered here.
Additionally, the defense never said that Abel did not farm, only that he also carried out the direct orders that were originally given to his parents in addition to the hardships that he inherited. “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.â€
The defense has no prejudice against farming and/or farmers, I am simply stating what is written in the testimony of the original trial. The prosecution further admits his own bias in the situation by pointing to his own distaste for eating meat.
Further, historically, the fatty portions of animals were always considered the best and most flavorful. Even today, farmers that raise high quality beef go to great lengths to adjust the diet of their animals so that the meat is marbleized(red meat interspersed by fat). This is widely acknowledged by such cliche sayings as 'chewing the fat' which was considered an after dinner honor given to guests. Between the annotations of 'fatty portions' and 'first born' the author is clearly indicating that Abel was giving his best.
Also, it should also be noted that there is further precedence relative to the case. In cases where humans have been sentenced to hard labor for their crimes, it is not unheard of for them to owe compensation to the wronged party in addition to their punishment of time served in hard labor. What is illustrated in this case is analogous to a convict just serving his time and ignoring the recompense vs. a convict that is serving his time AND trying to make due recompense. No warden in the world could be faulted for showing favor to the convict that was trying to make amends to the wronged party.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 21:34 (4727 days ago) @ dhw
Your Honour, this case is not about my client’s murder of Abel, which cannot be condoned, but the prosecution are making an ever stronger case against the powers-that-be for extreme provocation.
I have to agree with dhw's last sentence above. This is just one reason I am inclined to view this "God" that Adam and Eve, their children, and he whom the Old and New Testament refers to as God, as not "The" God, but a god or gods. I am not making a judgment about this god being a bad or good god. But obviously, to me, this god has (human like) preferences, ideas and "needs." For me, these beings of the scriptures referred to as angels, archangels, gods and so on...(if they truly are real?) can all be summed up in one single word: Aliens. Those not from here.
It makes more logical sense to me that "if" Adam and Eve, and other humans the many sacred books speak about, did indeed have communications with gods, angels, beings, etc., that those beings were not from here and obviously had to be an advanced race of beings. If these advanced races did have something to do with seeding the earth and creating humans, then maybe we had a right, at the time, to consider them "gods," in a sense. But for me, now, as I see it, they are not the creator of all that IS; ie., everything. They, too, are a part of creation, just as we are. Even if they had a hand in genetically engineering us, and thereby believe they have the right to be called "gods" they did not create the matter that we are - or for that matter - the matter that they are.
In my view, the creator God of all that is - IS All THAT IS! The very stuff every thing is made of. Within this creative energy that IS, is no judgment and no need, only creative change that had no beginning and has no end. This, the "God" of Adam and Eve and those written about in our sacred books, cannot claim.
Sorry to interrupt the proceedings. But wondering as a jury member if I should be disqualified for my belief?
bb
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 21:56 (4727 days ago) @ BBella
You are absolutely not disqualified by your belief Bella, though, I would also direct your attention to my other comment in the other segment of this thread.
However, I both agree and disagree with your comments. Yes, God et all could be considered Alien, foreign, non-native to this world. And yes, I agree that God could be considered ALL THAT IS. However, I would also argue that if God, and I use that term here sole as the province of the original, the first cause, etc, is all that is, then it also contains personality, as personality exists. As for needs, like the needs, no it has no needs. I think I specifically pointed that out when I said that there is absolutely nothing that you can give God other than your free choice.
My main argument here, and the entire point of my belief system really, is this:
- We(humans) were created for a specific purpose.
- This act of creation was performed out of love.
- There is a long term plan of corrective action, though the details of such a plan are quite likely beyond our limited comprehension and are at work at a time scale that, because of our limited lifespan, seems to be a burden. However, i speculate that this time frame is not by any means random, but probably is dependent upon certain criteria that must be met for such a thing to be successfully implemented without starting from scratch.
- We were given an opportunity to learn how to accomplish that task perfectly.
- We refused the proffered training in favor of doing things our own way, and thus accepted accountability for all choices that we may make.
- We are accountable for all that has occurred since that time.
- God is not responsible for our poor choices.
- Because of our lack of understanding and our imperfect knowledge, it is highly improbably that we can ever adequately understand the actions that God takes to fulfill or advance whatever prerogative he chooses.
- Sin is not a matter of good and evil, but a simple case of what is right(without any context of morality) and what is wrong(without any context of morality).
- Morality is an extension of this ideal that consists of a set or preferences for things that have been tested over time and deemed either controversial or damaging to the individual, community, environment, or species.
- Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.
- Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.
I hope that clears up some of my arguments.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Sunday, November 27, 2011, 22:31 (4723 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Sorry for the delay in response, Tony, we have been out of town for the holidays.
However, I both agree and disagree with your comments. Yes, God et all could be considered Alien, foreign, non-native to this world.
The "god/s" I was speaking about that have the qualities that the scripture texts usually give to "God," to me, I believe, describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God" and many have since bought into, but, in my understanding, this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants. Even if those wants may be to look out for our good, or not so much, considering the flood (who knows? but after watching the recent Ancient Aliens, the flood may have been for our good as well. I will leave that unjudged on my part). But I did want to clarify, that from my perspective, the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.
And yes, I agree that God could be considered ALL THAT IS.
From my perspective, the Creator of ALL that IS, could be considered similar to the way some ancient beliefs describe mother earth. They call her Gaia. Here is one description of Gaia I've found that evokes the sentiment I am going for:
Mother Earth is the sentience or soul of our planet. A sentience is that which is conscious or aware of itself and its purpose. A sentience is more like an emotional response and less like an intellectual process. Gaia sentience (or Mother Earth) animates the planet, gives it purpose and makes life on Earth possible. Our past is deeply rooted in the earth and our future depends upon our ability to recreate a relationship with our sentient planet. We hope that you will accept Mother Earth's invitation to open your heart and change the world by honoring all moments with respect, partnership and peace.
The above description describes mother earth as a sentient being, as a whole, which includes us, we are her and we are her children at the same time, as we are made from her elements. A sentient being is "less" like an intellectual being, in that it doesn't have "thought," as a whole, it responds as a whole to itself and to outside forces. It describes a sentient being as being "more" like a being that "responds" on an emotional level. When you search the word emotion, and get to its root, you get a feel of what I believe is also the root of how a sentient being is. The word disturbance, motion, movement, reaction, all come into play. This is what I see as The true Creator God. All that IS, is sentient. Everything that IS, is sentient and responds on an emotional level from within it's own integument to ALL THAT IS. The difference is...I/we do not know the boundaries of the circumference of the being of ALL THAT IS, nor it's shelf life....like we think we know Gaia's.
So, for me, to make it clear from my perspective, The God is a sentient being that responds to itself in an emotionally reactive way. God is not a being that speaks from the heavens or comes down from the heavens to speak with humans or directs them to write books about it's exploits and teachings. That, to me, would be another race of beings, more advance I grant you (maybe so much so that they could be considered god by a less advanced civilization), but not The Creator of "ALL THAT IS."
However, I would also argue that if God, and I use that term here sole as the province of the original, the first cause, etc, is all that is, then it also contains personality, as personality exists.
I believe, because of the sentient creative nature of the ALL THAT IS, this being we are all a part of, I agree, it definitely can have personality...as a matter of fact, because of it's sentient emotional nature, it can be all or anything you "need" it to be, many times, right when you need it to be. Because, it reacts/responds/creates in reaction to emotion. Need is an emotion. When we have a need, the sentient being of ALL THAT IS, does create what it is we need. As long as our subconscious or other surrounding factors, are not interfering with that creation (a greater need). There are many, many books of wisdom, self-help books, etc written on the creative sentient nature we all are and are a part of. We, as is said, have been created in the image of this sentient being. We are all holographically a mirror image of the one sentient being, THE ALL THAT IS. We, too, are creative emotional beings.
continued...
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Sunday, November 27, 2011, 23:30 (4723 days ago) @ BBella
[continued...]
[*] Because of our lack of understanding and our imperfect knowledge, it is highly improbably that we can ever adequately understand the actions that God takes to fulfill or advance whatever prerogative he chooses.
I agree, that in our own lifetime, we may not understand "the gods" reasoning in creating us or why? Yet, I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works. Once more of us comprehend and begin to live within that knowing, we will be able, as a species, to evolve past our current state, as a whole. I may not live to see it in this round, but I do believe I will see it.
[*]Sin is not a matter of good and evil, but a simple case of what is right(without any context of morality) and what is wrong(without any context of morality).
In my opinion, the word Sin, is, within itself, a word much like demon. It has a shelf life...and it's expiration date is upon us. This word has way too much baggage to be carried into our next evolutionary state of being. Even those very close to the "gods" of the scriptures predicted it's demise.
[*]Morality is an extension of this ideal that consists of a set or preferences for things that have been tested over time and deemed either controversial or damaging to the individual, community, environment, or species.
Morality, much like the word Sin, has a shelf life. At some point, it's meaning will be so diverse, it will no longer have use.
[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.
I agree, if you are saying above that there really is no such thing as inherited sin. This idea "may" have been a scare tactic of the "gods" much like the hell fire and damnation preaching's we have endured for the last few centuries. Or, may have been a misinterpretation by the the prophets. Either way, it may have been meant for a purpose to guide and direct the child like creatures we "were" but no longer are. Even Jesus came to proclaim this a dead thought we are no longer bonded to. Altho it is true, we are a product of our gene pull/pool, yet, our genes are only one part of the sentient being that we are. Especially now, because of technology and our connectivity to ourselves, we have the ability to overcome our gene pool and environment, many times, by emotional balance in our reasoning alone. That doesn't mean a tomato can become a potato...it just means we can choose to be a better quality tomato, if we choose (unlike a tomato of course).
[*]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.
I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?
bb
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 13:40 (4722 days ago) @ BBella
Bella,
Gonna try to respond to all of your points here. Thank you for taking the time to share your beliefs with us.
The "god/s"...describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God"...this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants...the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.
Um, actually, what you describe is EXACTLY what the bible describes. The "ALL that IS" that is mentioned in the bible is described as having only directly created exactly one thing, His 'only begotten son', and everything else was created through him and the active force, or 'holy spirit' of "All that IS". Whether you consider the Elohim as aliens or angels is only symantics as, by all description, they are fallible, have feelings, are not immortal, and can be in fact wrestled down by a mere human(Jacob).
From my perspective, the Creator of ALL that IS, could be considered similar to the way some ancient beliefs describe mother earth. They call her Gaia...
"Mother Earth is the sentience or soul of our planet. A sentience is that which is conscious or aware of itself and its purpose. A sentience is more like an emotional response and less like an intellectual process.".. A sentient being is "less" like an intellectual being, in that it doesn't have "thought," as a whole, it responds as a whole to itself and to outside forces. It describes a sentient being as being "more" like a being that "responds" on an emotional level. So, for me, to make it clear from my perspective, The God is a sentient being that responds to itself in an emotionally reactive way. God is not a being that speaks from the heavens or comes down from the heavens to speak with humans or directs them to write books about it's exploits and teachings.
This is almost, almost an echo of how I think. God IS love. But, that being said, emotion is a function of intelligence. Personally, I see emotion broken into two categories, apathy and love. Their may be some argument over that statement, but suffice to say for now that if you do not love or care about something, then there is no point in anger, hate, loathing, dissappointment or jealousy. So either you love it enough to care, or you are apathetic.The God of the bible DID react on a very emotional level, so I do not disagree with your statement, I simply allow for a broader scope.
I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works.
I think, as a species, are judgement is too clouded by immediate needs and desires(and our inability to distinguish between the two) to ever "All that IS". We are not temporally ready.
In my opinion, the word Sin, is, within itself, a word much like demon. It has a shelf life...and it's expiration date is upon us. Morality, much like the word Sin, has a shelf life. At some point, it's meaning will be so diverse, it will no longer have use.
That is why I attempted to simplify and remove all the baggage from the words. They are binary states. Either a = b, or not. Their may be more than one correct way to do things, but each and every one of those ways will either be correct, or not.
[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.
I agree, if you are saying above that there really is no such thing as inherited sin.
No. I am saying sin is very simply, a mistake. If you say a potato is a tomato, you are wrong, and it is a sin(mistake). No moral connotation involved. As I mentioned above, sin is the 0(false) in a binary statement. My mention of inherrited sin could be better read "inherrited teachings that are mistaken(wicked/sinful/wrong)"
[*]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.
I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?
It means that we are so lost, and so separated from the fundamental nature of reality that humanity as a species will never be able to find our way back on our own, without outside intervention.
[*]This act of creation was performed out of love.
I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.
That statement was specifically pointed to the prime motivation, and was made as an answer to DHW's concern over the prime motivation of a creator God. The prime motivation was love.
Cont...
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 07:34 (4721 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
[BB]The "god/s"...describes a race of beings our forefathers of the scriptures may have called "God"...this "God" gives me more the feel of a human like being/s that have needs and wants...the "God" of the sacred scriptures is not the same god as the Creator of all that IS.
[TONY] Um, actually, what you describe is EXACTLY what the bible describes. The "ALL that IS" that is mentioned in the bible is described as having only directly created exactly one thing, His 'only begotten son', and everything else was created through him and the active force, or 'holy spirit' of "All that IS". Whether you consider the Elohim as aliens or angels is only symantics as, by all description, they are fallible, have feelings, are not immortal, and can be in fact wrestled down by a mere human(Jacob).
Anything that is fallible, has feelings and is mortal is not what I consider THE ALL THAT IS. That's not to say those that spoke and directed our forefathers from heaven didn't understand much more than we did and so used that knowledge of THE ALL THAT IS to direct us (whether for good or bad I'm not judging)....such as giving a name, the Holy Spirit, to the work of THE ALL THAT IS. We were, after all, like children...so they related to us in whatever way we were able to understand.
God IS love. But, that being said, emotion is a function of intelligence. Personally, I see emotion broken into two categories, apathy and love.
I do not see that emotion is a function of intelligence. I was giving my example of the sentient nature of mother earth as similar to or like. For me, a bull may be angry, a dog may be loving...those seem like emotions, but they are only words our intellect give them. As beings, in the beginning, when we did not have words, we had no mental words of thought, but we had reactions and emotions...as the bull or the dog. So, for me, emotion is more "like," as I described it, a disturbance or movement of reaction to outside or inside forces. You are giving emotion as from an intellectual thought process..which is not what I meant.
The God of the bible DID react on a very emotional level, so I do not disagree with your statement, I simply allow for a broader scope.
Yes, he did...which is why I say that god/s is not the same as the ALL THAT IS.
[BB]I do believe we, as a species, we can and ARE doing a pretty good job, of getting a grasp of the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS and it's/our own make up and the way it works.
[TONY] I think, as a species, are judgement is too clouded by immediate needs and desires(and our inability to distinguish between the two) to ever "All that IS". We are not temporally ready.
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one!
[*]Inherited Sin is equivalent to compounded mistakes. An incorrect idea passed down from teacher to student. These mistakes often have physical counterparts that affect our very physical existence and thus are further compounded as they become genetically degrading.
I just don't understand why the word SIN has to even be used or discussed? Just say inherited teachings, mistakes..etc. Unless you feel the need to use it?
[TONY]Because of our imperfect understanding, this damage is irreversible by any means which humanity now possess, or will ever possess in the future, that has been derived from our own knowledge.
[BB]I am completely lost about what the above sentence means...care to clarify?
It means that we are so lost, and so separated from the fundamental nature of reality that humanity as a species will never be able to find our way back on our own, without outside intervention.
You mean, intervention from the aliens/gods/angels,etc? Probably not going to happen. I wouldn't wait for it (altho I could be wrong). On the other hand, why should we devolve, go back to the garden (one of my old fav songs from crosby stills nash and young)? If we did go back, we would just evolve just as we are! What would be different? Make better choices? How can we learn but by our choices? I believe we are evolving and always changing, like the way of all things. We are evolving and becoming more efficient and learning as we go. We may not see ourselves as growing smarter and more efficient because of our short life spans, but we are, nevertheless, becoming what we shall be.
[Tony]This act of creation was performed out of love.
[BB]I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.[Tony]That statement was specifically pointed to the prime motivation, and was made as an answer to DHW's concern over the prime motivation of a creator God. The prime motivation was love.
Cont...
I believe Love is a by product of creation and may even be the greatest power created, but is it what created humans? I can't say. Of course, most everything I think is always in a state of change...and at one time I did believe that Love was the first cause of all things. Now I don't believe so...
Sorry...I dont have time to proof read...hope it's all understandable!
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 28, 2011, 13:49 (4722 days ago) @ BBella
part 2
[*]There is a long term plan of corrective action, though the details of such a plan are quite likely beyond our limited comprehension and are at work at a time scale that, because of our limited lifespan, seems to be a burden. However, i speculate that this time frame is not by any means random, but probably is dependent upon certain criteria that must be met for such a thing to be successfully implemented without starting from scratch.
If, you are talking about the afterlife above, or what happens to "souls" after they die, I personally do believe in a type of reincarnation and an afterlife. But my belief has nothing to do with the "gods" who created us, but in the sentient being that we are and our own creative desires which have the ability to manifest an afterlife for our soul.
This statement was not so much geared to the afterlife, though I do suspect that there is some form of reincarnation. This statement is geared towards physical reality. There was an original purpose that was put off track because of humanities choices, and eventually things will be realligned with that original purpose. However, it will be done when the time is right, which probably has its own set of criteria.
[*]We were given an opportunity to learn how to accomplish that task perfectly.
This can be seen from two perspectives: We can look at the scriptures and go by its teachings and say, this was our God teaching us from long ago and our first fathers/ forefathers didn't listen and now we suffer for it. Or, we can recognize, as you've said before and/or since, we see the patterns of ALL THAT IS, given directly to us, and learn from those patterns how things ARE and work within the flow of that framework, or against it.
One way, narrowly looks to those imperfect "gods" of our forefathers in the scriptures and try to decipher or glean from their teaching the best way to look and walk in life that gets us the furthermost or helps us to feel like we are "living" right. The other, recognizes that everything we observe, within and without, is our teacher,
We can also do both :) Many times I have thought of religious texts as the 'hint books' for an extremely complicated puzzle. They don't give straight answers and they were never intended to. They instead give us clues that we can use as a sort of anchor point while examining reality.
..we become limited by any one book or teacher when we focus solely from that one perspective, even if we choose to observe other teachings, but with the eyes of limitation seen from one teachings perspective, we become limited by that perspective.
Agreed
[*]We are accountable for all that has occurred since that time.
I think you mistook what I meant here. We, as indidviduals are only responsible for our own personal actions, but as a species we are responsible for everything that has occurred since the choice was made to do things our own way.(i.e. We can only blame ourselves for the problems that we cause and their consequences.
I do believe that *all* of the original religious texts contain elements of the truth. I also think that there is much more to our existence than we currently understand. One of the reasons that DHW has a hard time pinning down my beliefs is that *I* have a hard time pinning them down. Contrary to what David says, the only holdover belief I have from my childhood is that of a loving creator god. Truth be told, I gave that belief up when I was 15, only to have it quite forcefully brought home to roost as I got older via my own experiences. For the most part, I see all religions as a way of trying to express the same concepts. And, as DHW is always quick to point out, I gladly acknowledge the corruptibility of religion via personal and political motivations on the part of organizations and individuals.
It is not unusual for me to entertain several different theories at once, and discount or refine them as I find new information that subtly shifts my perspective. However, for everything that I have found, nothing has been able to shake my faith in god, and in particular, my faith that God IS Love.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Thursday, November 24, 2011, 01:11 (4727 days ago) @ BBella
In my view, the creator God of all that is - IS All THAT IS! The very stuff every thing is made of. Within this creative energy that IS, is no judgment and no need, only creative change that had no beginning and has no end. This, the "God" of Adam and Eve and those written about in our sacred books, cannot claim.
Sorry to interrupt the proceedings. But wondering as a jury member if I should be disqualified for my belief?
bb
Bella: I'm with you. My UI is the intelligent creative energy of everthing that is ,and is within everything that is.
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Sunday, November 27, 2011, 22:58 (4723 days ago) @ BBella
continued....
My main argument here, and the entire point of my belief system really, is this:
- We(humans) were created for a specific purpose.
There is little doubt in my mind that the above sentiment is true. Yet, who created us and what for I'm not sure. It is like a tomato being grown in a farmers garden. It says to itself - That farmer is cultivating me and could be my creator, yet I know not for what? We are like a tomato in the aliens gardens...we may be cultivated for a purpose. Yet, even if they spliced the genes and created us for a purpose, "they" are not "The" Creator God - the sentient being of ALL THAT IS - and so, do not have sole creative licence over us or our purpose. Neither does "The" ALL THAT IS. Because that is not the sentient nature of creation, to have power or purpose over ALL.
[*]This act of creation was performed out of love.
I, personally, do not believe the purpose we were created by the "gods" was out of love. But, I believe love itself is a powerful creative force that drives, emotionally, the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS. It may be even the most powerful creative emotion that IS.
We can only hope, and I share this hope with you, that those that did create us, playing the part of the gods of the scriptures, did have love in mind for our creation. But my hope is not placed into those "gods," but the power of LOVE itself.
[*]There is a long term plan of corrective action, though the details of such a plan are quite likely beyond our limited comprehension and are at work at a time scale that, because of our limited lifespan, seems to be a burden. However, i speculate that this time frame is not by any means random, but probably is dependent upon certain criteria that must be met for such a thing to be successfully implemented without starting from scratch.
If, you are talking about the afterlife above, or what happens to "souls" after they die, I personally do believe in a type of reincarnation and an afterlife. But my belief has nothing to do with the "gods" who created us, but in the sentient being that we are and our own creative desires which have the ability to manifest an afterlife for our soul.
[*]We were given an opportunity to learn how to accomplish that task perfectly.
This can be seen from two perspectives: We can look at the scriptures and go by its teachings and say, this was our God teaching us from long ago and our first fathers/ forefathers didn't listen and now we suffer for it. Or, we can recognize, as you've said before and/or since, we see the patterns of ALL THAT IS, given directly to us, and learn from those patterns how things ARE and work within the flow of that framework, or against it.
One way, narrowly looks to those imperfect "gods" of our forefathers in the scriptures and try to decipher or glean from their teaching the best way to look and walk in life that gets us the furthermost or helps us to feel like we are "living" right. The other, recognizes that everything we observe, within and without, is our teacher,
[*]We refused the proffered training in favor of doing things our own way, and thus accepted accountability for all choices that we may make.
Seen from the perspective of our teachings from the scriptures? I disagree in one sense but agree in another. In life, their is wisdom we can glean from anything we observe for any length of time, including the sacred scriptures. But, we become limited by any one book or teacher when we focus solely from that one perspective, even if we choose to observe other teachings, but with the eyes of limitation seen from one teachings perspective, we become limited by that perspective. The sacred teachings, especially, tend to have that effect on people, from my perspective.
[*]We are accountable for all that has occurred since that time.
I disagree. I believe I am only personally accountable for what my personal soul takes responsibility for. Of course, if I choose to take responsibility for what has occurred since time began...then that would be true for me. The sentient being of ALL THAT IS, would honor that.
[*]God is not responsible for our poor choices.
I believe "The" Creator is responsible for ALL THAT IS, in the greater sense, that without the sentient nature of ALL THAT IS, we wouldn't be. But, when it comes to our own personal choices, being that we "are" all ALL THAT IS, and, at the same time, are free will agents within the boundaries of our soul being... in the sense, I am a tomato and have freedom to be all that a tomato can be, we are all personally responsible for all our own choices. We have the freedom, within the creative matter of being, to choose goodness above badness.
continued...
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 18:15 (4729 days ago) @ dhw
*******
An important personal note: I hope it’s clear to you that while these arguments do, I think, require an answer, I’m deliberately setting black against white. If I believed in God, my views would be very close to David’s wonderfully wise and balanced opinions as expressed in his posts to you on this thread.
Thank you. What is obvious to me is that it is very difficult to shake off parent's teachings (while you are in childhood. As an adult you may yearn to 'live up' to them. An example from my lie. My Mother told me thre was a God, in a matter-of-fact way. I went to Sunday School and learned that it was boring. I had a Bar Mitzvah because I was the first born male on both sides of our family. I memorized the Hebrew I had to 'read'. As a kid it was exciting: I pleased my parents, and I got lots of presents. There was a great party afterward. Psychological underpinnings for religious feelings, none! Tony on the other hand has those underpinnings and is returning to them.
None of us knew who God really is as a 'person like no other person' (Adler). We pick and choose from our background. I think I am lucky in the sense that I am a tabula rasa, a blank slate. I was agnostic, from not thinking deeply enough, and luckily began to read about cosmology and particle physics as the standard model was being fitted together. The logic of God popped out, but who He is personally is the wishful thinking in the Bible. And that is where the trouble between humans begins. Everyone wants to believe their version! Karen Armstrong points out three versions of God: OT adolescent, with an angry nasty, but loving God. NT, advances, thrives on a loving description, and the Quran gets to adulthood, by looking at his creations and knowing him through study of them. (With the Quran, just skip the nasty stuff about spreading belief with war and conquering).
Conclusion: the worst way to build a reasonable belief system is to start with biblical teachings. That is why earlier on this website I mentioned my 'third way'. dhw is frightened by what he reads about God in the OT. dhw doesn't like evil; God should have made the world 'perfect' in his mind. No, God had to give us free will. We would be puppets otherwise. Making this Earth requires Earthquakes that kill, and so on. Theodicy is addressed in many ways.
Clean out the cobwebs, clear your mind and the existence of God is logical. There has to be a first cause.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 21, 2011, 18:54 (4729 days ago) @ David Turell
*******
David
Thank you. What is obvious to me is that it is very difficult to shake off parent's teachings (while you are in childhood. As an adult you may yearn to 'live up' to them.
Which is exactly what the concept of original sin, and the inheritance of it is all about. You can't make something clean from something dirty. You can't make something perfect from something that is flawed.
Conclusion: the worst way to build a reasonable belief system is to start with biblical teachings. That is why earlier on this website I mentioned my 'third way'. dhw is frightened by what he reads about God in the OT. dhw doesn't like evil; God should have made the world 'perfect' in his mind. No, God had to give us free will. We would be puppets otherwise. Making this Earth requires Earthquakes that kill, and so on. Theodicy is addressed in many ways.
I honestly don't think it matters which route you take, as long as you arrive at the proper destination. I completely agree with you on Free Will though.
Clean out the cobwebs, clear your mind and the existence of God is logical. There has to be a first cause.
Agreed
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by DragonsHeart , Monday, November 21, 2011, 18:59 (4729 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
TONY:
"I honestly don't think it matters which route you take, as long as you arrive at the proper destination."
Some routes are more scenic than others. Sometimes, too, you have to get lost a couple of times before you get to that destination.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 21, 2011, 18:44 (4729 days ago) @ dhw
EVIL:
I'm trying to find a good way to explain how I see the issue and faltering with a lack of proper words and a way to express what to me are quite simple ideas. So let us see if I can put it in better terms.
A) Good and Evil as we know them are a cliche. Darkness is not better than light, it is the opposite side of the coin and is a complete necessity.
B) God is the creator of life, the father of the human race, and the giver of the ultimate gift. If he takes that gift away for a time in order to teach a valuable lesson, he does so with the full knowledge and confidence that he can restore that gift at a later date. I would argue that you are arguing based solely on an emotional response based on your value of life. You say that what he did was wrong and unfair, much like a child would say that confiscating their allowance to punish them is wrong and unfair, without taking into consideration that he can give back what he has taken.
CONSENSUS
DHW
So murder, rape and robbery are likely to be OK in God’s eyes?
If you have given someone the gift of life, and you are able to return the gift should you decide to retract your offer because of their misdeeds, then yes. However, as no human posesses the capacity to give the gift of life, then no human has the right of murdering another.
I am fairly certain that God never raped a woman. In fact, the angels that did have relationships with human women were cast out of heaven.
Again, for your argument of indiscriminate slaughter, he never took something that he had not given and could return in better than its original condition.
WORSHIP
DHW
Parents don’t deserve love because they are parents. They have to earn love.
And there are millions of children(humans) who hate God. But, God gave you life, a world to live in, a wonderful mind to appreciate it all with, the freedom to explore and grow as you chose, and the wisdom of his guidance. I think he has done more than any parent in human history to earn your love and respect. God also did not force humans to prove their love and trust before conferring knowledge upon them. In Adam's case, God walked with him in the garden speaking with him(teaching him). It was only after humanity turned away that he asked worship as a pre-condition, and even then all he asked is that you be receptive, put effort into your study, and show your appreciation by your actions. The only thing that he did not give you directly, is your choice. What he gave you was the ability to make it with the promise that he would not force you to choose one way or the other, and that is why that choice is so important to him.
SACRIFICE
What lesson for life was God teaching Abraham when he told him to slit his son’s throat?
That God is the creator of life. That what we give up in service to him, he can give back to us. The faith part is the faith that he WILL do so.
(btw To a child, hard work could be considered appalling. Hell, I know some adults who are apalled by it. :P)
PEEING ON GOD’S SANDALS
DHW
In biblical terms, as quoted by my learned friend the Counsel for the Defence, “The son will not share the guilt of the father†(Ezekiel 18:20)
Firstly, genetically they were already tainted. Secondly, mentally that had been raised by their parents would would have passed on their mental taint to their children. Any psychologist worth his salt can tell you that parents pass on their own twisted ideas to their kids, and they could also tell you how difficult it is in adulthood to leave behind the ideals you were raised with. Yes, each man will be judged for their own sins, but because we pass on a screwed up since of reality to our children, they will always sin. We make it impossible for them not to. Also, God didn't kill Abel, Cain did.
KILLING KIDS
DHW
Great. Then let’s kill everybody, to spare them the problems of this life. Your Honour, I submit that the Counsel for the Defence is advocating mass extermination in the name of the Lord. And I don’t like the look in his eye.
Objection Your Honor, counsel is speculating and twisting the testimony. God can kill because he can give it back in better condition than the original, unless you can do that, you are dead wrong.
GOD’S MOTIVE
DHW
That is what this trial is all about, and motive is directly relevant to our understanding of the alleged crimes. But you and I can ONLY debate the issues according to our (not just my) limited knowledge, and according to what WE see as right and wrong. The rest is up to the jury.
The alleged crime of taking back a precious gift that had been taken for granted, used, abused, degraded, and misused in order to keep it safe until such time as it could be given back under more controlled circumstances?
Humans never ate from the tree of life. What does that imply? The life we were originally given was given freely, but the right to permanant ownership was conditional. No human has ever met the conditions, so no human has complete ownership of their life. You wouldn't fault a car company for reposessing a car when the owner defaulted on the contract. So why do you hold it against God?
*******
I always appreciate your arguments DHW, and though we may have opposite views, your arguments always force me to think about my position, which is more challenge than what most people can offer.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
Tony, I’m now speaking to you as dhw and not as prosecuting counsel. I shan’t quote your latest responses in detail, because they are based almost entirely on your absolute faith that God is all-good, all-loving, all-caring. Those acts which may seem to some of us to be arbitrary and cruel – e.g. his slaughter of the innocents (I don’t just mean in biblical stories) – are simply part of his great plan, and the victims, together with those who are left grieving, will eventually be compensated because he will give them a better life. I hope this is a fair summary, but if not, do please correct it.
There can be no argument here. Those who share your faith will nod in approval. Those who do not will say that it’s irrational, your claims cannot be substantiated in this the only life we know we have, and you see only what you want to see. That is probably the end point of this particular discussion. Except that I wish to clarify my own position. I do not nod in approval, but I do nod with respect: if your faith brings you comfort, and leads you at worst to do no harm to others and at best to do good (I hope our criteria are the same here), that respect will have been well earned. I would say precisely the same to atheists – many of whom pursue humanist values which frequently coincide with those of the less fundamentalist believers. When all is said and done, none of us know the truth, every theory is equally riddled with uncertainties – though theists and atheists will be equally opposed to my “equallyâ€! – and one either takes a leap of faith, or one sits on the fence.
******
I’m pleased and relieved that you find our discussions a useful challenge, and of course I do too. That is the whole point of the forum, and you will see that I’m still jousting (and having fun) with Casey and David on other posts. I hope you’ll respond to this one too, as the summary may be inaccurate, and it may also be that you disapprove of my conclusions. If you do, it would be interesting to know why!
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 18:02 (4728 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
e.g. his slaughter of the innocents (I don’t just mean in biblical stories) – are simply part of his great plan, and the victims, together with those who are left grieving, will eventually be compensated because he will give them a better life.
I would like to know more about what other acts outside of biblical stories you are referring to, out of curiosity.
In regards to the other, yes, my faith that there is a God is absolute, but my interpretation of his personality is not based on my faith that he exists, nor is it in fact based on the biblical accounts nor those of any other book. I could go into a detailed list of personal experiences that I have had, and almost did do so in one post, but I digressed in favor of sparing you and the others here of some rather gruesome and gory details. My belief that he is loving and kind, and my belief that mankind is just as surely doomed to failure is based on my experience, not on my faith.
Faith is one of those funny things. I don't use my faith to bring myself comforting, and if anything, it is a irritating briar caught in the seat of my pants because I can make no claim to have lived a good life, and can only hope that my intent is judged as kindly as some of my actions are harshly. In the end, the best that I can hope for is to break just over par and hope that God is as loving and generous as I believe so that he might forgive the balance of my debt.
Whether you are a man of science, a man of faith, or somewhere between the two, at some point you have to have faith in something. I don't place my faith in God as a way of hedging my bets, but when compared to the folly of man....
******Fun is a wonderful word, and a wonderful feeling. The fact that friends can have fun disagreeing with each other and arguing against each other as a means of refining their own individual beliefs is a testament to the quality of people on this site.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
TONY (referring to the slaughter of the innocents): I would like to know what other acts outside of biblical stories you are referring to, out of curiosity.
Every flood, tornado, earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption that has taken human life. But we’ve clashed on this before. If my memory serves me correctly, you blame some on human activity (hardly applicable to earlier times, when humans didn’t have the technology to influence Nature), and for the rest you claim humans were given ample warning and should have run away. Perhaps you would now add that God was merely fast-tracking the victims to a better life, and saving them from the problems of this one.
You say your “belief that he is loving and kind […] is based on my experience, not on my faith.†I find it difficult to draw the borderline between faith and belief, but in a religious context, I’d say faith is stronger and has no rational or evidential basis. I would apply that equally to faith in a loving God and to faith that chance can create the astonishingly complex mechanisms of life and evolution. Experience seems to me as good a basis as any for belief/faith in God’s existence, love and kindness. I’d also say that reason alone is not a basis for religious belief or disbelief, which ties in with your next statement:
TONY: Whether you are a man of science, a man of faith, or somewhere between the two, at some point you have to have faith in something.
Interesting. I don’t see science and faith as being polar alternatives. Science can only deal with the material world as we know it, and is ill equipped to deal with some of the realities that dominate our lives: above all, our emotions and other “spiritual†experiences. Furthermore, science is constantly changing its theories about the nature of physical realities. That’s not a criticism of science, but an indication that even physical reality is too complex for it to cover. In the old days, the great scientists were often men of faith, and they saw no contradiction.
As for having faith in something, you say you don’t place your faith in God as a way of hedging your bets (a justified poke in the eye for Pascal?), but “when compared to the folly of man...†If your faith in God is based on experience, you don’t need any further explanation. However, as someone who is committed to the reality of the here and now (which is why I kick hard against the very idea that present grief is of no consequence beside the promise of a better life to come), I see no need for faith (irrational belief) in anything. I think I’m as aware as you of the folly of man, and I hope you’re as aware as I am of the beauty of man, his scientific and artistic achievements, his altruism, his capacity for love. I have found immense joy and fulfilment through family, friends, former students and colleagues, the creative arts in which I’m still active, my cricket club, the pleasure of corresponding with people like yourself…These are real, and for me they’re enough. Of course it will all come to an end. Death is inevitable, but more than death I fear the prospect that one day I might become a sick and lonely old man. So I hope to be as lucky at the end as I’ve been throughout the run-up. If there’s a loving God and a happy afterlife to come, that would be great – but “you have to have faith in somethingâ€...No, just enjoy every moment, as long as your enjoyment is not at someone else’s expense.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 21:02 (4727 days ago) @ dhw
See, this is one point where I vehemently disagree with people. In general, people are very quick, when the topic of religion presents itself, to blame every bad thing in the history of the world that has ever happened at God's feet. They are quick to blame for the bad, yet slow to acknowledge the good. More to the point, no one ever acknowledges that, a) as we pointed out in the other branch of this thread, the protection afforded to man at the beginning was removed because mankind sinned. God doesn't have to cause all of these natural disasters, they were already in place. All he did was remove his protection and blessings from an ungrateful race of humans. b) God said point blank, according to Genesis, that the days of an individuals life were limited in number. i.e. People would die. Not that he would directly cause their death, but that, because mankind rejected his teachings and decided to do things their own way, the inevitable outcome was death.
The idea of sin is not one of 'offense against God', and I am not sure where people get that idea. Sin could most easily, and accurately be described as 'a mistake'. What Adam and Eve passed to their children was the ability to make mistakes, the ability to make the wrong choice, and be held accountable for those choices. Now this is not wrong in the sense of good and evil or any other such non-sense. It is wrong in the sense of peeing on an electric fence, or standing in the middle of a busy highway. Peeing on an electric fence is not evil, but it is definitely not good for you, and if the voltage is high enough, it will kill you.
In the beginning, God was protecting Adam and Eve while he taught them. Their actions said that they didn't want to be taught, and that they already knew better. So, God let them go and make their own mistakes.
To give a fatherly analogy, he gave them a helmet and pads and training wheels and offered to old the seat of the bicycle while they learned to ride. They said they already knew how, so he removed the helmet, pad and bicycle. What you are doing is blaming the dad in this analogy for the petulant child getting hurt, and possibly killed, because the child refused to listen and learn.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
First things first. I believe that stories such as Adam & Eve are pure fabrication, as are many other biblical tales, and I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. It’s important to reiterate this, because my discussions with you are based on your premise that God exists and that the bible generally represents a true record. What follows is therefore a discussion on the nature of God as if he exists, and as revealed both in the world and in the biblical “recordâ€, as if this were true.
You say people “are quick to blame for the bad, yet slow to acknowledge the good.†I have always been at pains to acknowledge both. I’ve repeatedly stressed the theory that man is in God’s image, and hence is a mixture, and if anything I think I have a more positive attitude than you do towards the good in humans (= a reflection of God’s good). In my experience, far too many conventional theists are quick to blame humans for being bad and slow to acknowledge how good they are. Such theists are also quick to acknowledge God’s good, and often totally unwilling to acknowledge even the possibility of his bad.
TONY: God said point blank that people would die. Not that he would directly cause their death.
This particular post concerns my reference to “the slaughter of the innocentsâ€. I have no choice here but to return to the bible: the flood and the killing of the Egyptians’ firstborn are instances of God’s directly causing death through what we might otherwise explain as natural disasters. You have made it clear that all humans have inherited “sinâ€, which in your post to BBella you say is equivalent to “compounded mistakes†– “an incorrect idea passed down from teacher to studentâ€. My point is that babies (the most innocent of the innocent, of whom no doubt many were killed in both incidents) can hardly be accused of sinning. Your only answer to that was that God was fast-tracking them to a better life, and sparing them the problems of this one. Parents should, apparently, thank God if their children die prematurely.
Natural disasters may or may not be necessary for the sustenance of life, though I’d be surprised if your Garden of Eden was subject to floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions etc. If it was, God would have needed to offer a bit more protection than helmets, pads and training wheels. If it wasn’t, the implication would be that God is perfectly capable of creating a disaster-free environment if he wants to.
I like your statement that “the idea of sin is not one of ‘offense against God’", though I don’t know why – in your post to BBella – you say it has no context of morality. As I see it, sin and evil are actions that cause harm to our fellow creatures, and if morality does not entail distinguishing between good and bad treatment of others, I don’t know what it can mean. This is not peeing on an electric fence – which is indeed a ‘mistake’, and a damn stupid one at that – but pushing someone else into the fence and peeing on them and it. All credit to God for giving us a code of conduct to protect ourselves and others. No credit to those who break the code. We can agree on that. But the subject of this thread is God’s nature, and I would suggest that the bible is simply bursting with evidence of what BBella has called God’s (human like) preferences, ideas and “needsâ€. Not surprising, since he made us in his image.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 25, 2011, 00:05 (4726 days ago) @ dhw
One of the more irritating habits you have, is that when these discussions come up, you normally immediately put in me the role of defending the Bible as though I were a bible thumping Christian. Because that is the role I am put in, I tend to play that role to the best of my abilities. Yes, I do believe that the vast majority of the bible is true and accurate, and I also recognize the possibility in it for misinterpretation, mistranslation(intentional and unintentional), and outright fabrication on the part of the original authors or later translators. I get it, I really do, and yet I consistently find myself in the position of having to defend a position that I might not be a firm defender of in the first place. Truth be told, and as I have repeatedly stated, I have just as many questions about the bible as anyone, it is simply the book that I am most familiar with, the one in which I know the stories, legends, myths, names, and whatnot. It seems to me, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, that you get really hung up on the ins, outs, and details of these stories, so much so that I think you end up losing their meaning and importance in favor of trying to prove or disprove their validity, accuracy, and significance.
Also, I hate it when you twist what I say around. I said it "could be seen as sparing them the problems of this life, and fast tracking them on the road to a better life..", not that it would or should be, nor that any person would not have strong personal feelings about losing their loved ones in such a manner. I simply refuse to pass judgement on him for an action that I do not have complete understanding of. Humanity is only capable of presenting their side of the story, and a single sided perception in a trial is generally useless. The point that seems to have been generally missed and/or ignored is that in no account has God ever taken what he did not give in the first place or what he could not give back. And yes, to me that is a pretty profound yet often overlooked truth.
As far as the good of mankind, I absolutely do recognize the 'potential for good in mankind'. More specifically, I recognize the potential for all things in mankind. I simply to not share your optimism that man will start making good decisions any time soon. Individuals are smart, people are stupid. Man will dominate man to his ruin. Love of money is the root of all evil.These kinds of cliches are cliches precisely cause they are true. All you have to do is open your eyes to see these represented in the heart of man absolutely everywhere you look.
Lastly, I identified sin as 'a mistake' to Bella because for me it was new a shift in the way I think brought about by our discussions. I shook off the last clinging notions of universal good and evil, and what is left what is a mistake, and what is not. This leaves in a much more fruitful position than morality because it leaves in the position to ask "Why is this a mistake?" with an open mind and heart without all the psychological trappings of good and evil. The why, by extension, leads to the how, and between answering the two there is something to learn.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 25, 2011, 03:15 (4726 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As normal, I realized rather belatedly(as is usual for me) that the tone of my message was not what I intended. I apologize. Please let me try and clarify.
By starting the thread off with the title "Tony's God", I kind of felt forced into the role of defending the bible, even though the thread was started because I used the bible as a counter to Abel's thread for the singular reason that he was using an argument that was built predominantly around Judeo-Christianic Archetypes. I found the situation frustrating because it represents a fundamental rift between something that I am to argue, and my actual belief structure, which, as outlined in response to Bella, has little basis on the bible.
Yes, I DO believe that the Bible has tremendous validity and deeper levels of truth than many ever realize. However, just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not claim, nor have I ever, that every single word must be interpreted literally, nor do I claim any special insight as to what is or is not to be interpreted as literal. That is a question for archaeologist.(However, it should be pointed out that in your introduction to this thread you implied that the stories should be taken literally, so I treated them as such.)
I also believe that much of it is couched in allegory meant to inspire contemplation on deeper subjects, allowing the reader to arrive at fundamental truths by way of reflection and meditation. Arriving at a truth in this manner is far more potent, and the effects much longer lasting, than having someone 'preach it to you from the pulpit'. Not only that, but the brain in its mysterious way seems to niggle at you whenever you are misunderstanding something, processing information in the background, inspiring odd questions until you arrive at an answer that it accepts wholly and fully, at which point it moves you off into another direction, normally along some associated topic. To beg your humor for a moment, let's call this trait 'the knowledge of good and evil', or, as I postulated in my previous discussion, 'the knowledge of correct and mistaken.'
Have you ever wondered WHY we are so drawn to question something that we have heard answered a million times? Why is that when we here an answer to a question, we KNOW whether it is right or wrong, even if we can not put our finger on WHY? Why is it that men pursued science when the world thought that we 'had discovered everything there is to discover'? Why is it that we push the boundaries of science, math, space, philosophy, religion, and truth even when we have what could be considered satisfactory answers?
The second line of questioning I would put to you is, why do we love? Contrary to popular thought, I see no evolutionary advantage in love. There is no advantage in giving a sick person help. From an evolutionary standpoint, the person is weak, flawed, a hindrance to the species and should be culled from the herd and the gene pool. Children old enough to care for themselves offer little selective advantage to the parents. Marriage beyond the point of having reproduced and seen the children safely out of the nest confers little evolutionary advantage. So, why do we love? What is there about love that is so fundamental that we see its echoes in all of creation? Even in creatures that supposedly have no introspection like mother lion caring for her cubs, or mourning their death.
You maintain hope for mankind and can not understand why I have so little. I have seen man's goodness. I've picked bloody chunks of mankind's 'loving kindness and goodness' off the streets of Mosul with my own hands. I've seen the half-crushed rotting stench of mankind's greatness in Tikrit with my own eyes. I've smelled the remains of mankind's diplomatic endeavors with my own breath. Every day we read stories of mankind's overwhelming good nature and generosity as they murder, steal, manipulate, lie, cheat, embezzle, poison, and attempt to enslave each other under the oh-so-loving guise of 'building a brighter future.' This is the nature of the creature that you praise so highly, DHW, and unlike the arguments we had of God, mankind is incapable of giving back what they have taken or destroyed. A is not equal to B. Man did these things, not God. And perhaps you think that my personal experiences have clouded my judgement, but I think they have given me perspective.
I grew in the country, listening to the beautiful music of nature. Smelling honeysuckles in the morning on my way to school. Catching tadpoles in the fowl pond only to watch them morph into frogs. Playing with baby alligators because their skin felt neat. Watching livestock give birth. Watching the newborns struggle to stand and the loving tenderness displayed by even the dumbest cow on the planet. I watched a good man sitting in a non-denominational church service get shot in the back with an RPG and walk away without so much as a scratch. Saw another get shot point blank in the face with a 9mm and walk away with only a missing tooth. I should have died at least a dozen times, probably more, and every time it was only by some odd little unusual coincidence that I just happened to be somewhere that I normally am not that saved my life.
Sorry my friend. You can put your faith in men. I know where my faith belongs.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 25, 2011, 03:26 (4726 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I should add that my hate and loathing is not directed to people, but rather to their actions, to their choices. There are good people in this world. There are people who try their best to do the right thing.
The problem as I see it, is that as a race, we do not temper our actions with love. If, as David and Bella maintain, God is all that there is, and if, as I maintain, God is love, then perhaps viewing all of our actions through the lens of love will reveal the fundamental truths that we have been searching for. You can not tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
Tony, we’re rapidly approaching the point at which we need to round off this discussion. The prosecution/defence roles have been a useful exercise, in so far as they have forced us to examine our positions very closely, but the polarization inevitably leads to misunderstandings. Your latest posts have helped to clarify these, and although I must admit I was slightly shocked by the first one, those that follow bring us much closer together, as well as helping me to understand the background to some of your thoughts. Thank you for being so open.
Let me in turn clarify a couple of points. You wrote: “I simply do not share your optimism that man will start making good decisions any time soonâ€; and “You can put your faith in men. I know where my faith belongs.†I don’t have any such optimism, and I don’t have faith in men. Human history lurches from one man-made disaster to another, and in my crystal ball I see no change. We are a destructive species – destroying both ourselves and other forms of life. But that is not the whole story.
I found your personal experiences very moving and illuminating, and to illustrate my viewpoint, I’ll recount two of mine - not as dramatic as yours, but for me just as far-reaching. I was brought up during the war, and was old enough to be shaken to the core by the newsreels of the skeletal Belsen survivors (David will remember them) and by the gradually emerging tales of the Holocaust. As a little Jewish child, I knew that could have been me. Even now a film like ‘Schindler’s List’ makes me churn. In my teens, because I was gifted at languages, I won a travel scholarship to pay for a trip to Germany. I hid my terror, even from my parents. More in a moment. In my early twenties, I applied for a teaching job in Ghana, West Africa. In my ignorance – shared by many of my generation at that time – I had strange preconceptions of the oh-so-different “Dark†Continent, but was eager to learn. Both experiences were life-changing. What I discovered was that Germans were not monsters, and that Africans were not aliens. Despite cultural and, in Africa, even physical differences, our basic core was exactly the same. We had the same needs, weaknesses, strengths and, above all, emotions. My ties with Germany have remained very strong, and I’ve been married to my African wife for nearly 46 years. My experience is that wherever you go, you will find among ordinary people just as much warmth, humour, empathy etc. as you will find cold and callous self-interest. There is a balance in human nature, but it has been distorted by a now seemingly unchangeable institutionalization of power. We all know that power corrupts, and those who have it are the ones who tip the balance towards what you call “mistakesâ€, whether political, economic, educational, or religious.
I’ve left out the most important emotion of all, because I want to comment on your final paragraph: “The problem as I see it, is that as a race, we do not temper our actions with love. If, as David and BBella maintain, God is all that there is, and if, as I maintain, God is love, then perhaps viewing all of our actions through the lens of love will reveal the fundamental truths we have been searching for. You cannot tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.â€
Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments. You’ve put in a nutshell precisely what’s wrong with the world, and precisely what could set it to rights. Where we differ is that I don’t need belief in God to see this fundamental truth. Nor do I see any solution through faith in a God whose existence and nature are so much in doubt. Evolution will run its course – whether he is there or not – and we as individuals can only do our best to base our actions on love. Many people do, and despite global suffering and future disasters, the present moment can be made happy, and it should be relished. You might argue that if we followed God’s teachings, all would be well, whereas I will argue that if we followed the principles of humanism all would be well. Perhaps that’s as close to each other as we can get. Pax?
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, November 25, 2011, 23:46 (4725 days ago) @ dhw
No worries, and I hope no offense taken. We can throw beer mugs or teacups at each other and shout obscenities and call each other unflattering names and it still would not change my respect for you or your opinions and insights one bit. :) As for me, I was having a bad day. I was over it after some sleep, and I bounce back quickly.
Tony
You cannot tell me that mankind, as a species, puts love first in all the things that they do. At least, you can not tell me that while being honest with yourself.[/i]â€
DHW
Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.
Tony
Didn't mean to imply that you had said/insinuated it, simply that I do not think there can be any argument with the statement if one is practicing any degree of intellectual honesty.
You’ve put in a nutshell precisely what’s wrong with the world, and precisely what could set it to rights. Where we differ is that I don’t need belief in God to see this fundamental truth. Nor do I see any solution through faith in a God whose existence and nature are so much in doubt. Evolution will run its course – whether he is there or not – and we as individuals can only do our best to base our actions on love. Many people do, and despite global suffering and future disasters, the present moment can be made happy, and it should be relished. You might argue that if we followed God’s teachings, all would be well, whereas I will argue that if we followed the principles of humanism all would be well. Perhaps that’s as close to each other as we can get. Pax?
Supposedly humans have had between 6000 and 4 million years to figure it out, depending on who you ask. Regardless of which set of numbers you agree with, I think that the evidence is in on whether or not we can do it for ourselves. The funny thing about belief to me is that every ascribes different things to faith. See, I don't need faith in God to enlighten me as to the relevance of love. My faith in God is simply that he is a god of love, and that he will do what is in the best interest of all in its own due course.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
TONY: No worries, and I hope no offense taken. We can throw beer mugs or teacups at each other and shout obscenities and call each other unflattering names and it still would not change my respect for you or your opinions and insights one bit. :) As for me, I was having a bad day. I was over it after some sleep, and I bounce back quickly.
Greatly appreciated, no offence taken, and the respect is 100% reciprocated. Sadly, not everyone can handle this kind of discussion – and I fear Abel is the latest, following on from the equally silent broken_cynic. A lot of interesting contributors, theist and atheist, have come and gone during the four years or so since the website opened. No doubt most have given up in disgust because they “know†they’re right, but some may well have taken offence. This has never been intentional on my part, but the mere act of challenging people’s deeply held convictions can seem offensive in itself, which is why I’m immensely grateful to people like yourself, who are prepared to discuss their views in a spirit of give and take.
TONY: Supposedly humans have had between 6000 and 4 million years to figure it out, depending on who you ask. Regardless of which set of numbers you agree with, I think that the evidence is in on whether or not we can do it for ourselves. The funny thing about belief to me is that every ascribes different things to faith. See, I don't need faith in God to enlighten me as to the relevance of love. My faith in God is simply that he is a god of love, and that he will do what is in the best interest of all in its own due course.
As I see it, the technological forces we’ve developed will eventually cause destruction on a global scale, because sooner or later there will be enough idiots in power either to unleash them (weapons) or allow them to tip the ecological balance (pollutants). None of us can stop the process anyway, because there are simply too many autonomous power structures (which means autonomous idiot authorities) that are or will be capable of mass destruction. As individuals we can only enjoy what we can while we can – though I doubt if the human race will wipe itself out completely. By then, we might even have found the means to colonize somewhere else in space, so we can start the process all over again.
I don’t think faith in a god of love will make any difference. History will run its course unless he intervenes – again on a global scale. I don't suppose you imagine he’s going to appear from on high and make all the idiots into geniuses to save the planet! Even when, according to Christians, he did try a non-violent intervention by sending a peace-and-love-preaching Messiah, the outcome was the usual human mixture of peace and war, love and self-seeking, and it didn’t make a blind bit of difference to the onward march towards the abyss. A global intervention would probably have to be a comet that would finish us all off. So...and this is where our discussion may take a different course... perhaps what you have in view is a paradisal afterlife. Any thoughts you’d like to share on that?
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 26, 2011, 18:57 (4724 days ago) @ dhw
DHW
".. the mere act of challenging people’s deeply held convictions can seem offensive in itself, which is why I’m immensely grateful to people like yourself, who are prepared to discuss their views in a spirit of give and take."
People are naturally resistant to change, especially to long held belief. Strangely, it almost seems as though the brain interprets someone challenging your views in the same way that it does a physical attack, and just like you can train yourself to respond appropriately to a physical attack, you can train yourself to respond appropriately to having your beliefs challenged. When you challenge my beliefs, it does frustrate and irritate me. I expect it to, and in most cases I am able to respond appropriately to the challenge. When other stresses are involved though, it erodes that ability.
DHW
As I see it, the technological forces we’ve developed will eventually cause destruction on a global scale, because sooner or later there will be enough idiots in power either to unleash them (weapons) or allow them to tip the ecological balance (pollutants). None of us can stop the process anyway, because there are simply too many autonomous power structures (which means autonomous idiot authorities) that are or will be capable of mass destruction. As individuals we can only enjoy what we can while we can – though I doubt if the human race will wipe itself out completely. By then, we might even have found the means to colonize somewhere else in space, so we can start the process all over again.
I don’t think faith in a god of love will make any difference. History will run its course unless he intervenes – again on a global scale. I don't suppose you imagine he’s going to appear from on high and make all the idiots into geniuses to save the planet! Even when, according to Christians, he did try a non-violent intervention by sending a peace-and-love-preaching Messiah, the outcome was the usual human mixture of peace and war, love and self-seeking, and it didn’t make a blind bit of difference to the onward march towards the abyss. A global intervention would probably have to be a comet that would finish us all off. So...and this is where our discussion may take a different course... perhaps what you have in view is a paradisal afterlife. Any thoughts you’d like to share on that?
This is a hard question to answer, primarily because any answer I give is a) pure speculation, and b) subject to being interpreted as subscribing to a particular belief system despite the disclaimer that it is merely speculation. I don't have time to go into it here at the moment, but when I get back later on tonight I will sit down and try to write up a few possible scenarios that I have played through as intellectual exercises. Suffice to say for now that I am 100% in agreement with you as to the ultimate out come of mankind in the foreseeable future barring any outside intervention.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
I asked Tony if he had any thoughts about a possible afterlife.
TONY: This is a hard question to answer, primarily because any answer I give is a) pure speculation, and b) subject to being interpreted as subscribing to a particular belief system despite the disclaimer that it is merely speculation.
Erm…another bad day at the office? But this is an important point for future discussions. On an absolute level, ALL talk about God and his nature is speculation, since none of us can ever “know†anything. That is my position, but it’s not yours, which is where the misunderstandings arise. You actually BELIEVE in a loving God, and I would like to know why. From that moment on, I have no idea how much of your “evidence†constitutes belief and how much speculation. (I now know that experience is the main “evidenceâ€, but it took quite a while for that to be established.) For instance, when we talk about the bible, unless you tell me specifically, I have no way of knowing initially whether you regard the Eden story, the Exodus story, the Jesus story as myth, truth, or a bit of each – in which case, which bits? It’s only by continuous clarification that I can find out what YOU regard as speculation. As regards a belief system – as opposed to an individualistic belief like David’s – I’m not sure even now to what extent you’re bound, say, to the central Christian concept of Jesus as the Saviour, Messiah, Son of God. You’re clearly a very independent thinker, which also suggests that you subscribe to some parts of belief systems but not to others. So it may just be that sometimes you know what for you is belief and what is speculation, but I don’t. It’s not always easy to tell!
I will just add that from my perspective, if there is a God, I would regard his existence as almost irrelevant unless there really is some kind of afterlife. I say “almost†only because some people derive great comfort in the here and now from believing in him. The subject is therefore central to our discussions, but please don’t feel obliged to respond. That wouldn’t be fair. If you do respond, though, I promise that I will NOT interpret what you say as a belief! Your disclaimer could not be clearer.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 27, 2011, 16:49 (4723 days ago) @ dhw
As far as the boundary between belief and speculation for me is concerned, I believe there is a loving god, a creative UI with personality. Much beyond that and I am exiting the realm of my firm beliefs and entering the realm of speculation on the nature of said entity, trying to understand whatever I can in my own foolish way.
In regards to the afterlife, I do not subscribe to the heaven and hell models that are shouted by red faced sermonizers from the pulpits. I can't believe that any loving creator(the central tenent of my belief) would condemn someone to a fiery torment for an eternity for something that they could not avoid. Heaven, on the other hand, is to narcissistic of a concept for me. It absolutely reeks of elitist arrogance. 'I'm better than you so I'm gonna go to heaven' type garbage that caters to mans desire to govern over something, anything, as if being in heaven will give them some small measure of authority over things they could not control in life.
That being said, throughout the world, in every culture that has ever existed, there has been god, and an afterlife. Regardless of the variety, regardless of the form, that has been as universal than death and more-so than taxes. So, why, and in what form.
So, as in other things, I look at the world at large and study the patterns that I see and try to make sense of it all. The two things that I see as universal are cycles and evolution(And I use that word only in the sense of 'change')
My best guess on the after life takes one of three forms, and in the end will probably settle somewhere in the middle. Either we die, and that is it, (which I have a hard time accepting), we enter a cycle of rebirth(reincarnation) as we progressively come closer to our spiritual perfection, or the cycle is imposed on us from outside and we are guided into that point of spiritual attainment a few at a time.
Personally, I think that, given the evidence, the last option is the most likely. I also think that would be a better fit with the archaeological evidence as well as the mythology of the numerous cultures around the world.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 05:35 (4723 days ago) @ dhw
My experience is that wherever you go, you will find among ordinary people just as much warmth, humour, empathy etc. as you will find cold and callous self-interest. There is a balance in human nature, but it has been distorted by a now seemingly unchangeable institutionalization of power. We all know that power corrupts, and those who have it are the ones who tip the balance towards what you call “mistakesâ€, whether political, economic, educational, or religious.
That is why I wrote the first book. But electorates are at complete fault. They vote for the guy who promises the biggest government trough. It is Athens all over again.
Tony, I’ve never thought, let alone said any such thing. That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.
God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.
Tony\'s God
Dhw: My experience is that wherever you go, you will find among ordinary people just as much warmth, humour, empathy etc. as you will find cold and callous self-interest. There is a balance in human nature, but it has been distorted by a now seemingly unchangeable institutionalization of power. We all know that power corrupts, and those who have it are the ones who tip the balance towards what you call “mistakesâ€, whether political, economic, educational, or religious.
DAVID: That is why I wrote the first book. But electorates are at complete fault. They vote for the guy who promises the biggest government trough. It is Athens all over again.
The electorate is generally given the choice between ambitious fallible human beings and ambitious fallible human beings. In many countries there isn’t even a choice of ambitious fallible human beings. You can't always blame the electorate!
Dhw (to Tony, 25.11 at 16.06): That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.
DAVID: God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.
DAVID (to Tony, 21 November at 06.36): ...my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don’t know that that God exists.
So how do you know that your God is not a mixture? Grrrr, there was me praising you to the heavens for your balanced view, your reluctance to endow your God with specific attributes, and all of a sudden you come up with an all-good God!
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 18:24 (4722 days ago) @ dhw
The electorate is generally given the choice between ambitious fallible human beings and ambitious fallible human beings. In many countries there isn’t even a choice of ambitious fallible human beings. You can't always blame the electorate!
For goodness sake. Have a TEA party and put up more reasonable people!!! We did in the USa and it has worked so far!
Dhw (to Tony, 25.11 at 16.06): That is a misunderstanding brought about by my questioning God’s nature and my suggestion that he’s a mixture of all the attributes – good and bad – that he has poured into us, his image. The mixture is at the heart of all my arguments.DAVID: God is not mixture, but his creations with free will are.
DAVID (to Tony, 21 November at 06.36): ...my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don’t know that that God exists.
So how do you know that your God is not a mixture? Grrrr, there was me praising you to the heavens for your balanced view, your reluctance to endow your God with specific attributes, and all of a sudden you come up with an all-good God!
We do not know what God is as a personality. I've said this over and over. I've never said God is all good. I don't know. I just can see His creations. Life is good, by my standards, people vary.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 28, 2011, 01:10 (4723 days ago) @ dhw
Natural disasters may or may not be necessary for the sustenance of life, though I’d be surprised if your Garden of Eden was subject to floods, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions etc. If it was, God would have needed to offer a bit more protection than helmets, pads and training wheels. If it wasn’t, the implication would be that God is perfectly capable of creating a disaster-free environment if he wants to.
As you may remember from my book, I believe that much as God used evolution to create us eventually from early life, the universe also is created to evolve. As a result natural disasters are 'natural'. The Earth must have earthquakes in subduction zones, because the continents must float on the core to have the Earth provide for life as it does. The Earth is a living planet in the sense of Bella's Gaia.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, November 19, 2011, 19:56 (4731 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, November 19, 2011, 20:02
What is there, then, to counter the argument that the human world is a reflection of its creator, with the same homeostatic mixture of good and evil that he himself created in Eden? .. However, if one discounts the man-made stories of the Bible, and simply observes the sheer beauty balanced by the sheer horror of our world, one might well conclude that it has been left entirely to itself. If God exists, he and humans may well share their capacity for good and evil, along with an equal capacity for indifference.
Of course we share the same capacity. The difference between humans and God is described quite succinctly in Genesis' story of the two trees. What he has that we don't is perfect knowledge and immorality. (We must not let them eat of the tree of life or they will become like gods...)
I do not see it as a capacity for indifference though. And ultimately, I think this is one of the key points of disagreement between you and I. You think that because he doesn't step in and make things right, like magic, that he doesn't care. I see it from the perspective of a parent. Sometimes when my children are especially insistent on doing something their own way, especially if I have warned my kids over and over about something and of all the dangers involved, I will let them do it and reap the consequences of their actions. It breaks my heart. It hurts to see them hurt. It pains me to see their tears and scraped knees or broken arms or busted lips. However, as much as it may pain me, I understand that in order for them to learn, and since the are not willing to listen to my counsel, then they must learn the hard way. Humanity is learning the hard way that we are incapable of ruling ourselves in a manner that is good. We have had no truly successful government. Our ecological projects backfire the majority of the time. Our industrial aspirations destroy as much or more than they produce. Our greatest creative efforts go into creating ways to kill each other. God is letting humanity skin it's knees and break its arms, so that when we are done being mule headed we will be ready to listen and learn. You can not teach someone that already knows everything. You can not fill a cup that is already overflowing.
Or, to flash back to my earlier analogy. The Grand Designer is letting us build our Pimped-out Cadillac, complete with amped up stereo, lift kits, hydraulics, low profile tires, and gold dangling from the rear view mirror. He hates what we have done to his car, but we wouldn't listen, so we have forced him to stand back and watch us make an ass of ourselves. After we have gone deaf and vibrated out all the connections in the car with the stereo, and after we have beat ourselves to death with the hydraulics, and after we have killed the axles and struts with the low profile tires, and after we have slapped ourselves repeatedly with the gold chains dangling from the review mirror, and basically after we have completely demolished his perfectly designed car with our ludicrous ideas, we will be ready to listen to the old man teach us how to build a car the right way.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by BBella , Saturday, November 19, 2011, 23:08 (4731 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Or, to flash back to my earlier analogy. The Grand Designer is letting us build .....and after we have... demolished his perfectly designed [creation] with our ludicrous ideas, we will be ready to listen to the old man teach us how to build... the right way.
I can only say to your convincing rendition, Tony, "Almost thou persuadeth me to be a Christian" again.
bb
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, November 20, 2011, 01:05 (4731 days ago) @ BBella
That is high praise indeed Bella, thank you. Though, the truth of the matter is, I 'm not even sure if I am a Christian. At least not in the traditional connotation, and certainly not in the sense of ascribing to Catholicism or some other denominational sect.
I believe in God. Whether he is called YHWH, or Allah, or Brahma, I don't know. And whether his son is Michael, or Jesus, or Vishnu, I don't know. I know the bible pretty well, so that is what I mainly discuss. What gives me some measure of certainty that the vast majority of the contents within it are correct is that they can be cross-referenced from nearly every cultural center in the world. Flood mythos, the Tower of Babel, the Nephilim, Adam and Eve, the Garden, these are not single isolated stories from a single book. So I am still trying to dig beneath the surface of all of them in order to glean whatever truth I can find.
As for God, well. It/He/She/They are out there. The fundamental pillar, the central core, of my belief is that there is a creator god that is not only personable, but also loving and wise. In my worldview, he has never been the hellfire and damnation figure that some religions paint him as. He has never been a fickle friend or apathetic. In my world view, his role has always been that of a parent. Loving, kind when needed, stern when needed, fair in all things(despite how it may seem from my perspective), and always willing to impart knowledge if, and only if, I allow myself to be willing to receive it.
**sorry. I trimmed the rest of this post. Too much information.**
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 02:39 (4730 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
What gives me some measure of certainty that the vast majority of the contents within it are correct is that they can be cross-referenced from nearly every cultural center in the world. Flood mythos, the Tower of Babel, the Nephilim, Adam and Eve, the Garden, these are not single isolated stories from a single book.
They are historical references. The OT (Torah portion) is definitely history. I've stood in the excavation of David's city in the early 1980's and talked with some of the archeologists. Our guide was also very helpful in pointing out direct evidence. Noah's flood was probably from from the Black Sea as the last glacial age melted, created ice dams and then released huge volumes of water.
As for God, well. It/He/She/They are out there. The fundamental pillar, the central core, of my belief is that there is a creator god that is not only personable, but also loving and wise. In my worldview, he has never been the hellfire and damnation figure that some religions paint him as. He has never been a fickle friend or apathetic. In my world view, his role has always been that of a parent. Loving, kind when needed, stern when needed, fair in all things(despite how it may seem from my perspective), and always willing to impart knowledge if, and only if, I allow myself to be willing to receive it.
My question is how do you know this? You really don't. This is your desire for God's personality either from desire alone, or faith and desire. You certainly have the right to this view of God, but it requires absolute faith. I haven't achieved that view, because my mind works from wanting as much proof as I can get. A good portion of Psalm 19 is the key to studying the power of God, but there is no way to study his personality.
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 21, 2011, 02:58 (4730 days ago) @ David Turell
I find it humorous, and rather ironic that you are ok with science studying, theorizing, and basing whole bodies of work based off of indirect observation. Yet, you balk when the same methods are applied in a religious context.
By observing the near endless variety, the beauty, the logic, the 'magic' of this creation, and all of the wonderful things that we experience on a daily basis, one can infer much. After all, the universe could probably have been created in black and white with everything uniform. I am fairly certain that it would have been much more efficient and easier and wouldn't have taken half of the effort. Humanity could have been simple automatons with little or no real intelligence or capacity for emotion. These are things that lead me to believe the way that I do.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 06:36 (4730 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
By observing the near endless variety, the beauty, the logic, the 'magic' of this creation, and all of the wonderful things that we experience on a daily basis, one can infer much. After all, the universe could probably have been created in black and white with everything uniform. I am fairly certain that it would have been much more efficient and easier and wouldn't have taken half of the effort. Humanity could have been simple automatons with little or no real intelligence or capacity for emotion. These are things that lead me to believe the way that I do.
I'm on your side. I agree with your statement above. There has to be a God. Look at Psalm 19. But my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don't know that that God exists. And yes I talk to Him, pray if you insist on that word. But I have no idea that He cares about me specifically. I hope He does. I think He may be watching over me, but despite the fact that I am not sure, I lead a moral life, I try to help others, and never out of fear of punishment. There is no Hell in Judaism. But, intellectually, look at all the religions who threaten punishment if you are not good. Heaven becomes candy for childlike people. It is kindergarten thinking, much asx you have inferred.
One is good for the sake of goodness. One does unto others because that is the right way. Hillel preached that 50 years before Jesus. My ideas are just like M.J. Adler's. He died converted to Catholicism; I'm not sure I can get to that position. His estimate is 50/50 that God cares individually about specific people. (Book: How to think about God.)
Tony\'s God
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, November 21, 2011, 15:10 (4729 days ago) @ David Turell
I'm on your side. I agree with your statement above. There has to be a God. Look at Psalm 19. But my God is not what you want your God to be. Where you have extended logic is you want a loving caring God who can advise you, love you. I don't know that that God exists. And yes I talk to Him, pray if you insist on that word. But I have no idea that He cares about me specifically. I hope He does. I think He may be watching over me, but despite the fact that I am not sure, I lead a moral life, I try to help others, and never out of fear of punishment.
His personality I infer from the evidence, that he cares I take on faith. I could be mistake, but I don't think I am.
There is no Hell in Judaism. But, intellectually, look at all the religions who threaten punishment if you are not good. Heaven becomes candy for childlike people. It is kindergarten thinking, much asx you have inferred.
The flavor of Christianity I was taught as a child contained no Heaven or Hell, at least not in the way that its taught by Catholicism or other major Christian religions.
One is good for the sake of goodness. One does unto others because that is the right way. Hillel preached that 50 years before Jesus. My ideas are just like M.J. Adler's. He died converted to Catholicism; I'm not sure I can get to that position. His estimate is 50/50 that God cares individually about specific people. (Book: How to think about God.)
Of course you should be good for the sake of goodness. The people that are doing it in hopes of getting a reward at the end are completely missing the point.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Tony\'s God
by David Turell , Monday, November 21, 2011, 17:35 (4729 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Thank you for your explanation of your point of view.