Why Call Him God?

[Phanta]

You're right, God doesn't prevent all evil. Only at the end of this age will God fully stop evil. Though God hates evil, He allows it at the present time.

 

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

 

Is he waiting for a certain number of souls to make it through or something? Why the wait?? Also, what next, after the end of the age?

You're right. Why does God wait? Why does he not prevent it right now? Why does he allow it?

 

Some Christian apologists claim that it's better somehow. That it's the better because it allows free will. To allow free will and evil to co-exist is somehow a greater good than not to do it.

 

If it is so great, then why stop it? Why this finite cycle of birth-freewill-death and then eventually the new heaven/earth and all of that gone? Does God have a quota to fill?

 

But in Heaven, of course, the greater of two things is to have a world where evil does not exist, but somehow free will still does...

 

Perhaps the people in heaven at that point will have made their final free will choice, and that is what matters. Earthly life is the test, and the good of free will is simply in the choice for God or against, not in free will as an end in itself.

 

But then, why didn't he do that here? He could have done that from start, so why wait making the better world? It can't be that this world is the best one and Heaven is the best one, both at once!

 

That is strange. I guess the best world is simply one that we have not tainted with our sin. Our original world was just fine (perfect!) until we fucked it up. See? So now we must cycle through birth, the test, free will choice for God or against God, death, and judgment for a a finite time until God decides for some mysterious reason he is done cycling souls through. Then, those who used their wonderful free will for the choice it was needed for are locked into their decision. No longer able to sin, and with no new souls forthcoming, God can create a new perfect world, but this time there is no one around who is able to fuck it up, because those people are either obliterated or locked away in hell far far away from the new, wonderful Earth.

 

That clear everything up?

 

Phanta

[Ouroboros]

You're right. Why does God wait? Why does he not prevent it right now? Why does he allow it?

 

Some Christian apologists claim that it's better somehow. That it's the better because it allows free will. To allow free will and evil to co-exist is somehow a greater good than not to do it.

 

If it is so great, then why stop it? Why this finite cycle of birth-freewill-death and then eventually the new heaven/earth and all of that gone? Does God have a quota to fill?

Good point.

 

When is the right time to end this experiment? How many does God need in Hell before he consider the whole free-will-choice-of-better-heaven-than-this-world process to be finished?

 

But in Heaven, of course, the greater of two things is to have a world where evil does not exist, but somehow free will still does...

 

Perhaps the people in heaven at that point will have made their final free will choice, and that is what matters. Earthly life is the test, and the good of free will is simply in the choice for God or against, not in free will as an end in itself.

Yes, but for whom is it better? Not for the 99% of all humans suffering in Hell. Only the few that managed to pick the right religion, mostly by birth, will end up blessed for eternity.

 

Why does God need a handful of people who made the right choice? It sounds like a mad scientist doing some research experiment with lab-rats. How many of them will pick the wrong food dispenser and get the poison? And how many will get the nutritious food? Let's see who dies a painful death and who doesn't. But first, to give them a chance of choosing right, let's put some weird ideas in the head one of the rats, who then can proclaim the "good news" to everyone else.

 

The surviving rats will get some really nice cheese...

 

But then, why didn't he do that here? He could have done that from start, so why wait making the better world? It can't be that this world is the best one and Heaven is the best one, both at once!

 

That is strange. I guess the best world is simply one that we have not tainted with our sin. Our original world was just fine (perfect!) until we fucked it up. See? So now we must cycle through birth, the test, free will choice for God or against God, death, and judgment for a a finite time until God decides for some mysterious reason he is done cycling souls through.

I think that's one of the core issues. When? When will God have enough of saved souls? When will the quota (as you said) be filled? And is it really worth to God to let so many more go to Hell just so he can get a few more admirers.

 

Then, those who used their wonderful free will for the choice it was needed for are locked into their decision. No longer able to sin, and with no new souls forthcoming, God can create a new perfect world, but this time there is no one around who is able to fuck it up, because those people are either obliterated or locked away in hell far far away from the new, wonderful Earth.

 

That clear everything up?

Yup. God has a choice to end it and not feed Satan more souls, but he doesn't make it because he rather have a few more in Hell in the hopes of getting maybe one more whore-shipper... I mean, worshiper, in Heaven.

[walker]

I’m honestly asking you what you think and envision. What I listed would benefit society. If you see these ideas as benefits to society that does not in my mind make you a horrible person. Some people believe in ideas such as these. They’re not horrible people - they just see things differently and have a different philosophy.

 

Do you see the ideas I listed as immoral? If so, why? And do you see these ideas as always immoral, or ideas that fluctuate from immoral to moral depending on the circumstances of a particular civilization at a certain time?

 

You are completely re-framing the entire discussion and oversimplifying what I have previously stated. What you listed would not benefit society. Well-being is not tied to physical or financial well being but also emotional well being as well. If we start forcibly pulling the plug on grandma, will this benefit the emotional well being of her grandkids or her family? Times that by a thousand or million and that would be a pretty upset society! How would these things benefit society? Take a murderer in prison for example. You state it is in a societies best interests to simply kill him. Is it? In a society with an evolved sense of justice it is always right to repay murder with murder? What if there's extenuating circumstances? What if there is a chance for rehabilitation? Is it an air tight case? You seem to think that I am arguing for some manner of Orwellian society and that a focus on well-being would lead to this manner of civilization.

 

Yes, many ideas that were immoral are moral now, ideas that are immoral now were moral before. We live in a world of shifting morals based on societal rules, our own maturity as a species, and differing cultural norms. Is it always wrong to murder someone? Is it always wrong to lie? If however, you recognize that morality is not dependent on some fallacious deity, and that we have come past a primitive understanding of morality that demands a perfect human sacrifice be made to cover our "sins" then maybe we can move on.

O-K, what about the people who are a burden to society who have no one who cares about them living? There are many people like this - people who are alone and “invisible”. Philosophically-speaking, would it be harmful to anyone to mercifully end their lives? (I am asking a serious question - I’m not disrespecting you in any way.)

 

You asked if it was always wrong to murder someone or to lie - can you give me an example of when both these actions would be moral and right to do?

[mwc]

Both Adam and Eve did what any typical human would do - they blamed someone else for their own actions! As far as the earth, etc. being cursed because of their actions - God was telling them what now will happen - how their actions will affect them and the earth. Relationship and Trust had been broken - this had consequences.

Umm, yeah. They were punished.

 

mwc

[BrotherJosh]

O-K, what about the people who are a burden to society who have no one who cares about them living? There are many people like this - people who are alone and “invisible”. Philosophically-speaking, would it be harmful to anyone to mercifully end their lives? (I am asking a serious question - I’m not disrespecting you in any way.)

 

You asked if it was always wrong to murder someone or to lie - can you give me an example of when both these actions would be moral and right to do?

 

Well if I don't base their well being off their intrinsic value and they are a "burden to society" then sure, but the problem is you are viewing it as a black and white issue. You either see it as, we derive our morals from God or we live in an Orwellian society where we kill off grandma because no one loves her. If grandma *wants* to end her life I have no issue with that at all. I don't view it as people being or not being "burdens" to society. Our society is set up in the idea that we are going to foster the greatest amount of well being as possible in other words the ideal is that everyone has financial opportunities, quality health care, protection, a stable government, an equal society and various freedoms that we all have agreed upon (though few if none of these ideals are really actually met but still, that is the general goal.) Now people have various ways of seeking these goals, universal health care, gun rights, gay rights, freedom of speech etc...these are all agreed upon laws or morals or rather about how we ought to act. These common goals unite most everyone into seeking the best way to achieve that stability. People disagree on how to reach these goals (capitalism vs. socialism) but still that is the ultimate ideal - a stable, happy society. These ideas or morals change over time (feudalism to having property rights) so we can see how society's and man's morals or agreed upon ways of achieving these goals have varied or evolved. I believe I have mentioned it before, but even as you grow older your morals will shift with time, see Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

 

Let me ask you a question, should I derive my morals from the Bible? If so, why? And which morals should I derive? Which interpretation of the morals should I listen to? Should I burn the Wiccan chick who lives next door to me? Or can we agree, some of the morals in the Bible don't fit with a modern societies morals, and is instead a reflection of the values of the people during the time who wrote them, so maybe we should move past them?

 

 

Yes, if someone entered my home and was threating me or (well I don't have a family) so say my cat. If I had to I'd shoot the hell out of that person if I was being threatened. If a Nazi came to my door and asked if I were hiding Jews (and I was) I'd lie through my teeth all day and night.

[walker]

At least you are stating it directly now. I appreciate that. Most believers avoid these issues like the plague and just talk around it.

 

Free choice is more important than suffering, which is really a minor thing in your system of thought. I think the perpetrators of the Inquisition probably had the same mindset. What's a little suffering inflicted on wayward souls if it gets them to recant their wayward life and embrace the love of god? I know you really don't share in that extreme point of view, but I see nothing in what you have written that would really prevent that. You don't believe that the suffering of infants, young children and even pre-adolescents is significant. And god's "big plan" to maintain free will makes it worth all that.

 

It's ghastly to me because of the waste. And I see no reason why, if there is an all powerful, omnipotent and loving god, he would allow such suffering in order for people to freely choose him. It's that word "all-powerful." You can always fudge on it, but if he was "all that" then 50 billion young-uns being born only to die of disease and hunger , as well as murder is quite a pile of carnage just so OTHER people could have free will. Maybe he should only give people 3/4 free will and the number would have been 20 Billion. 10 billion. Maybe none? You consider "None" impossible for an "All Powerful" god who loves people? Please. Listen to the words you say.

Getting someone to embrace the love of God by inflicting suffering on them … interesting thought, right? Doubt that worked. And what did it say about the character and quality of those inflicting the suffering? To be honest, there are worse things than death. But that has to be carefully said because someone will think I’m for killing infants who will most likely have a life of suffering, and I’m not. And - many people choose to suffer. Training for the Olympics is painful. Losing weight (being hungry) is painful. People choose to suffer all the time for some goal that they value. People even will say they’re glad they went through some painful experience because it taught them something or made them stronger. So, would you agree that some suffering is valuable and some is even chosen? Do you want a world with absolutely NO suffering?

 

I understand this is not the large-scale suffering you’re speaking of. But, how do you get freely-given, deep, meaningful love without giving the ability to not love?

 

We still have areas of the world where the infant mortality rate is high. Why? Don’t you think a lot more could be done to help this? What stops people from helping?

 

Despite what you say to tie up the loose end of the meaningless suffering of the innocent young over the course of human history, over half the humans ever born never had a chance to make that choice. They were incapable of such a choice due to lack of developmental ability and/or lack of access to the theological tenets necessary to make such a choice.

 

Just because you have warm subjective feelings that they get a choice in the afterlife does not make your position plausible or believable.

 

If you want to continue to put forth such an assertion, what is your basis in fact for holding such a belief?

Does the Bible say infants who die shortly after being born go to hell? Does the Bible say these infants go to heaven? Not that I know of. But the Bible does reveal a Loving, Just God who gives everyone choice. It’s about relationship with God - seeing who He is, loving Him, and desiring to be with Him (or not loving Him and desiring to be separate from Him). When we meet God after we die we will see clearly who He is - we won’t need theological attempts to reveal Him to us and we won’t need earthly human developmental ability (not that those things guarantee an outcome either way anyway). Our spirit will meet His, and it will respond one way or the other. And - people who thought they rejected Him while on earth might embrace Him because they find they only rejected a false image of Him. Also, people who thought they loved Him on earth might find they embraced a false idea of Him - and they might in the end love their false image more than His Reality. After death there will be nothing in the way of clear revelation - all will be open, exposed … “naked“ (Gen. 3).

[walker]

I defining good as not sin. Also what I mean about the second sentence is imagine, the christian god exists, he creates us without the bible plot, but directly in heaven with the choice to worship him.

I am simply saying, that, the not what god wants path, can be of the table, but various other possibilities that wouldn't say be a sin, can be on the table. I am not thinking in a either or fashion, you are.

I think it has to be “either-or”. Either the choice is God’s Way or not. However, there are times when many options are God’s Way and many options are not - I don’t think it always has to be that one action is God’s Way and the only other possible action is not God’s Way. I do agree with you that there can be more than one option on God’s Path. But there will always be the choice to disobey, rebel, leave the path - not choose any of God‘s options.

 

(I don’t think Adam and Eve always liked authority either!)

[Deva]

When we meet God after we die we will see clearly who He is - we won’t need theological attempts to reveal Him to us and we won’t need earthly human developmental ability (not that those things guarantee an outcome either way anyway).

 

One of the things I am not happy with about Christianity is this attitude - we cannot know now, but we will know everything when we die. It is very disturbing. Why can't we see God now? Please don't say that we do through the Bible.

 

To be honest, there are worse things than death. But that has to be carefully said because someone will think I’m for killing infants who will most likely have a life of suffering, and I’m not. And - many people choose to suffer. Training for the Olympics is painful. Losing weight (being hungry) is painful. People choose to suffer all the time for some goal that they value. People even will say they’re glad they went through some painful experience because it taught them something or made them stronger. So, would you agree that some suffering is valuable and some is even chosen? Do you want a world with absolutely NO suffering?

 

Your posts, walker, bring back to me how the Christian religion elevates suffering. Yeah actually I do want no suffering. That would be Nirvana.

[oddbird1963]

Getting someone to embrace the love of God by inflicting suffering on them … interesting thought, right? Doubt that worked. And what did it say about the character and quality of those inflicting the suffering?

It says they are a lot like this god you present to us. A harrowing amount of pointless suffering and death is inflicted on humanity just so a precious few will choose this god. That's why you maintain your god allows the suffering and death of the young. So that the free will for people to choose him won't be compromised.

 

I understand this is not the large-scale suffering you’re speaking of.

Yes. It's a huge non-sequitor. Why did you "chase that rabbit?" The people who choose suffering know that their voluntary suffering has a long-term purpose whose benefits make the self discipline and endurance worth the time, energy and temporary pain. It's the purposeless nature of the young, innocents who suffer that is at the root of the whole question. And you are side-stepping it. Why walker? What makes all that suffering unto death worth it to this god of your? And what does that say about his character?

 

But, how do you get freely-given, deep, meaningful love without giving the ability to not love?

That is your problem. God does not exist. Therefore this question is irrelevant to me.

We still have areas of the world where the infant mortality rate is high. Why? Don’t you think a lot more could be done to help this? What stops people from helping?

That's just a red herring. Your "All powerful," "loving," and "just" god sat on his thumbs and let half of all humans ever born die before they could exercise the free will to choose this relationship you go on about. Why is his need for cuddly pet humans worth all that pointless, wasteful death?

 

Do you want a world with absolutely NO suffering?

That's a great goal to pursue. But right now a cogent, non-speculative explanation of why 50,000,000,000 children and preadolescences died so that your god could have his chosen human chia pets would be nice.

 

Does the Bible say infants who die shortly after being born go to hell? Does the Bible say these infants go to heaven? Not that I know of. But the Bible does reveal a Loving, Just God who gives everyone choice. It’s about relationship with God - seeing who He is, loving Him, and desiring to be with Him (or not loving Him and desiring to be separate from Him). When we meet God after we die we will see clearly who He is - we won’t need theological attempts to reveal Him to us and we won’t need earthly human developmental ability (not that those things guarantee an outcome either way anyway). Our spirit will meet His, and it will respond one way or the other. And - people who thought they rejected Him while on earth might embrace Him because they find they only rejected a false image of Him. Also, people who thought they loved Him on earth might find they embraced a false idea of Him - and they might in the end love their false image more than His Reality. After death there will be nothing in the way of clear revelation - all will be open, exposed … “naked“ (Gen. 3).

My question was, on what do you base this belief that newborns, infants, toddlers and preadolescents get to choose a relationship with god in the afterlife? You produced no bible verses that support your position, so you can't say you base it on the bible. You then extrapolate from some ambiguous declaration of a loving, just god. However, it is that love and justice that is in question because reality just doesn't jive with such an assessment.

 

And then, you proceed to declare what god will do and how things will be with nothing but your imagination and your emotionalism to back you up. Where do you get this from?

 

The magical mystery tour you reference where by seeing god in the afterlife we will somehow know everything we need to know to make an informed choice really only begs the question. Why wasn't such knowledge given in the first place? Why put precious human lives through such turmoil in life when their cognitive, emotional and rational abilities will be instantly enhanced (upon death)?

 

And really, you're just making it all up anyway. You have given scant reason to believe anything you say is true. I could probably write down all the lovey dovie, gushy, emtional, positive words I can think of on a piece of paper, toss them into a hat and string them randomly together with an occasional verb and come up with just as valid a theological position as the one you present.

 

If this cloudy theological dream world makes you happy, then that is great for you. This calloused indifference to and minimization of the overpowering magnitude of empty human suffering and death throughout time is what I find disturbing. But such superficiality in people is a coping mechanism. We want to maintain that god is out there, loving us , putting the scales of justice in balance and promising us that this life is not empty and meaningless. In order to maintain such a position, one must either deny suffering truly exists or minimize the significance of the suffering that people have experienced. I find those choices quite disappointing, but I understand why people go that route.

[walker]

I don't need evidence about whether or not there was an historical Jesus. I would need evidence that supernatural events occur, period. There are any number of things an all-powerful supernatural entity could do that would settle the fact of his existence once and for all. But no evidence can be given that anything supernatural has ever occurred. No evidence can be given that supernatural entities of any kind exist.

 

If you have such evidence - and not just questionable ancient texts - but evidence in the here and now that supernatural events happen or such entities exist, that would be the evidence to present. But our point is that you don't; our point is that none such exists. And failing evidence in the supernatural, there's no reason for us to believe in anything supernatural. Including the xian god.

 

In fact, even the free will you claim exists is questionable. It has been shown in studies that the decision is made in the subconscious, over which the individual has no control or knowledge PRIOR to the person performing the action or being aware of the conscious thought. How is it 'choice' if we have no awareness of the decision-making process?

 

I suggest Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Or Susan Blackmore's work, some of which is at: http://www.susanblac...o.uk/index.htm.

O-K, you would need evidence that something other than the natural world exists - the super-natural. Would you say that people are exactly as they would like to be? They act as kind as they would like to act - they’re as patient as they would like to be, as giving as they would like to be, as disciplined as they would like to be, etc.? Do you act exactly as you would like to ideally act?

 

I have awareness of my decision-making process, unless I have to act very quickly - in that case my decision is probably based on the character and quality of my “self” that has been being developed up until the moment of the needed quick decision.

[walker]

Is the supernatural an option for you?Is anyone here “already convinced”? I don’t think so. : ) Some will say “If I saw __________ I would believe”. Some will say seeing __________ would cause them to think about things. It seems you don’t want to think about saying such things because you don’t want to commit to considering the discussion.

 

You want evidence that Jesus existed (as a man). How do we accept that anyone who lived in ancient times existed? Are you going to accept standard criteria, or will you demand different standards?

 

What I want is for you to stop tap-dancing and present your evidence for this claim from the "2 Saviors?" thread:

Margee -

 

Briefly - there is one God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all found in the OT (first testament). God (Father, Son, Spirit) saves. In John 1 it says Jesus *was* in the beginning. Jesus always existed and He is found in the OT.

 

I hope your friend is doing well.

You present whatever you think you have as evidence and I'll go right on ahead and evaluate it. That's the deal. That's always the deal. ...

 

mwc

I don’t remember all our of conversation, and all you gave me was my first statement to Margee from the “2 Saviors?” thread. If you want evidence for what I said there, then I ask you the questions I asked NaturalMary63 in my last post (first paragraph). If instead, you want evidence Jesus existed as a man, then we can discuss evidence for the second testament. Just let me know which it is.

[Guest Valk0010]

I defining good as not sin. Also what I mean about the second sentence is imagine, the christian god exists, he creates us without the bible plot, but directly in heaven with the choice to worship him.

I am simply saying, that, the not what god wants path, can be of the table, but various other possibilities that wouldn't say be a sin, can be on the table. I am not thinking in a either or fashion, you are.

I think it has to be “either-or”. Either the choice is God’s Way or not. However, there are times when many options are God’s Way and many options are not - I don’t think it always has to be that one action is God’s Way and the only other possible action is not God’s Way. I do agree with you that there can be more than one option on God’s Path. But there will always be the choice to disobey, rebel, leave the path - not choose any of God‘s options.

 

(I don’t think Adam and Eve always liked authority either!)

Adam and eve didn't exist but anyway.

 

I don't see a disagreement here much. Your saying similar to what I would. I am just arguing that allows for a different conclusion (the lack of the necessity for the bible.) If there is 1 route that we will have to do, in a place like heaven, free will or pure determinism, we would be doing that exact thing. If there is something that would get us kicked out of heaven because of things like sin, then we wouldn't do it, if we were in heaven.

 

Of course you could say how do we know this stuff, it had to happen this way(with the bible and everything), but then logically you would have to change your view of whats is heaven. Because all I am saying is two things, free will without evil is possible and that if we do have a proper understanding of what heaven is, in regards to things like free will, then the whole fall of man and things like that are unnecessary, because if our purpose is to worship god, we can do that anyway without evil.

 

Ohh btw if you can find it, I would like your reply to my objections about miracles.

[walker]

When I hear you describe God, you yourself do so in anthropomorphic terms. "God thinks, God intends, God's plan for us," etc. Those all are ascribing human qualities to the Divine, putting a face on it and animating it in human terms, as a human-like being. Your very use of the word Him, is perhaps one of the strongest indications of this. God has a biological gender?? If you don't think so, you certainly perpetuate this residual Patriarchal mode of thinking about God. (A great example of myth creation in human evolution - God is male, not female anymore).

Yes, I use anthropomorphism and anthropopathy to speak about God. And, yes, I use masculine pronouns for God though I know He is neither male nor female. God is Holy Other. He chose to reveal Himself to us in these ways because it is the best way to communicate things beyond our understanding. It’s as if He says “I am like a good father in that I …” or “I am like a good friend in that I …”. There are places that feminine traits (psychologically-speaking) are used but the masculine is used more because within God’s relationship with us He is more masculine (psychologically-speaking) than feminine. It’s all using familiar concepts to us and our world to give us a hint of a Reality beyond our world.

 

Then are you willing to apply this to the totality of the entire Christian religion itself as well, that it is expressive of man's intuition of that Reality behind the shadows, and that that Reality is itself beyond the Christian system, and all systems, to the point that all systems, Christianity itself is expressive of this process toward our evolution to the Divine? (I'll give you a prize if you say yes! ).

 

Actually, myths are both expressive of present self-sense, and higher intuition, in my view. Again, let's see where this goes first.

So sorry to miss your prize! I believe we sense the Reality beyond the shadows only because God calls to us - He reveals this to us, sometimes in hints and sometimes more thoroughly.

 

When you say, "the revelation is accurate", are you meaning in speaking about God, or that matters of history and science that the Bible touches on, are themselves accurate in the sense that they would stand up to the tools of research into the "facts on the ground", as Biblical Archeologist or scientists and historians might call it?

 

There is a difference between claim it is "accurate" in talking about the Divine, and accurate in talking about facts of history and science. If you wish to claim the latter, you're putting yourself in a bad position and frankly taking the role of myth and misapplying it, badly.

 

(continued...)

When I say “revelation is accurate” I mean that which God revealed - which would be revelation about His Character and Nature, our character and nature, and our relationship with Him (broken trust, rebellion, restoration, etc.). There are prophetic sections as well. Genealogies, history, science - these passages won’t always be considered “accurate” in terms of our standards but are accurate within the context of Jewish literary standards/characteristics. For example, if we wrote a genealogy we would consider it important to list every main relative throughout the generations (to not skip generations). If Jewish writers didn’t have this standard for a genealogy, is that “inaccurate”?

[walker]

If God is infinite, then is it possible for there to be a definitive description, and a final authority, such as your Bible, on what that is? And as you say, "relationships should be alive," shouldn't that include understanding? As much as the Bible is man's expressions of his intuition of the Divine (as well as and expression of their present cultural and social evolution), then is it appropriate to Canonize it, to say this defines it and it should not move beyond it? Sort of like telling your spouse, "this is who you are, this is who I am, this is how it will always be."?

 

I say that these fundamental truths you speak of exist in all religions, and in all movements of human evolution. They are not owned, nor canonized by any religion or philosophy.

It is possible for God to give us revelation which tells us all we need to know for relationship with Him now. We don’t completely understand God - we don’t need to know everything to have a relationship with someone. The relationship and our understanding grows and deepens with time and through different experiences. It’s a journey - we don’t “arrive” during this life. Revelation in the Bible helps us discern God’s Voice. I don’t believe God stopped speaking at the end of the last second testament book - but though He continues to speak I don’t so far believe anything new needs to be added. Anything I’ve heard Him personally say to me or to a Christian author, for example, is really already covered in Biblical revelation. I’m open to more revelation, but the “claimed” post-Biblical revelation I’ve seen has not been from the same Voice which speaks through scripture.

 

I don’t see the fundamental Truth in other religions. Some of it - yes, but not all and not exactly (I see variations on a theme, so to speak).

 

There you are speaking from your mythology, not reality as it is. The world is not Evil, even if there are destructive actions and forces in it. Instead everything is mostly drawn to order, towards survival, towards balance, equilibrium, etc. If it were Evil if as your Augustinian mythology says, we wouldn't be here. We'd all be dead. Instead the very opposite is true. We seek to overcome death, we seek life. That is by definition in your words, "Good".

The world is not evil - God created and said it was good. And though the world has fallen there is still good. But I thought things tended towards disorder. Are you speaking of a self-preservation instinct?

[walker]

To address your hypothetical question, if no god or supernatural existed I don’t think people would create stories or myths to try to make sense of their world. The world would just be what it is. Evil - good - injustice would have no meaning outside of personal preference or benefit … they’d just be fluid concepts. Why would anyone wonder why suffering exists? It just does - someone wanted something someone else had and they killed him to get it.

This is the stupidest question I have ever seen on these boards. Walker, you're an idiot.

Do you just except that suffering is part of this world?

[Guest Valk0010]

To address your hypothetical question, if no god or supernatural existed I don’t think people would create stories or myths to try to make sense of their world. The world would just be what it is. Evil - good - injustice would have no meaning outside of personal preference or benefit … they’d just be fluid concepts. Why would anyone wonder why suffering exists? It just does - someone wanted something someone else had and they killed him to get it.

This is the stupidest question I have ever seen on these boards. Walker, you're an idiot.

Do you just except that suffering is part of this world?

Do you wonder why things happen, or do you just accepted as is? Even most theists are more skeptical then you walker if I am understanding you correctly.

[NaturalMary63]

O-K, you would need evidence that something other than the natural world exists - the super-natural. Would you say that people are exactly as they would like to be? They act as kind as they would like to act - they’re as patient as they would like to be, as giving as they would like to be, as disciplined as they would like to be, etc.? Do you act exactly as you would like to ideally act?

 

I have awareness of my decision-making process, unless I have to act very quickly - in that case my decision is probably based on the character and quality of my “self” that has been being developed up until the moment of the needed quick decision.

 

 

You obviously did not take the time to read the material I suggested nor did you look up the studies I referred to. Of course it FEELS like you have control of your thought processes, but in fact, according to the latest research, that is an illusion. The decision is actually made in the subconscious, of which you have no awareness, and passed up into the conscious mind. It FEELS like it originates in the conscious mind, but that is not the case.

 

More information can be found in the journal...

 

Nature Neuroscience 11, 543-545 (2008)

Published online 13 April 2008

doi:10.1038/nn.2112

 

Unconscious determinants of free decision in the human brain

Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze, John-Dylan Haynes

 

Abstract: There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

 

As to your first paragraph, none of your assertions provides evidence that supernatural phenomena exist.

[Antlerman]

When I hear you describe God, you yourself do so in anthropomorphic terms. "God thinks, God intends, God's plan for us," etc. Those all are ascribing human qualities to the Divine, putting a face on it and animating it in human terms, as a human-like being. Your very use of the word Him, is perhaps one of the strongest indications of this. God has a biological gender?? If you don't think so, you certainly perpetuate this residual Patriarchal mode of thinking about God. (A great example of myth creation in human evolution - God is male, not female anymore).

Yes, I use anthropomorphism and anthropopathy to speak about God. And, yes, I use masculine pronouns for God though I know He is neither male nor female. God is Holy Other. He chose to reveal Himself to us in these ways because it is the best way to communicate things beyond our understanding.

Or the other way around. People speak about God projecting their present world views forward, creating God in their own image as it were. I think my explanation is more reasonable to the facts we see everywhere in the world in the evolution of God from Great Mother, to hero gods, to single Masculine God, etc. If it is as you say God in the act of actively and deliberated using the present understanding of a culture's revealing itself, then you would have to say the the understanding of the earliest religions with human sacrifice was God speaking to the world using their present language or understanding to reveal himself. Instead, you can pretty much follow a line the other way, with man's opening of understanding, creating reflections of himself against the great Void in increasingly sophisticated, as well as terrifying ways.

 

Christianity was another step in that path of man's awakening. Now we are here at the next step beyond it. Is God beyond our understanding as you put it? But because we are in fact aware that these anthropomorphic expressions, the patriarchal modes of thought are incompatible with higher reasoning and modern evolved social needs, then that language has to change, and as a result of changing language, so is how we respond to and interact within that new created framework. To continue to speak of God in masculine terms is talking like a child, with a child-like imagination of the world. And absolutely yes, the language we use completely affects our abilities to think beyond it, and directly affects our attitudes and actions towards ourselves and others.

 

So if God "used" the present language to talk actively communicate his nature in human terms, then why is God not using the language of the post-Enlightenment world to describe himself, and jettison the early, less sophisticated language of "Him" and all these notions of an active meddler in specific human affairs? If you are correct, that should happen. If I am correct, we are seeing it happen, just as it has through every age. You know that fundamentalism was born directly as a reactionary response to that evolution happening, as a symptom of that change, right?

 

It’s as if He says “I am like a good father in that I …” or “I am like a good friend in that I …”. There are places that feminine traits (psychologically-speaking) are used but the masculine is used more because within God’s relationship with us He is more masculine (psychologically-speaking) than feminine. It’s all using familiar concepts to us and our world to give us a hint of a Reality beyond our world.

And the only way you start to gain higher concepts is by changing your language to match those. Do you still speak of the world like this? "That tree is looking weird at me! Dad, make it go away." Of course not. The sophistication of your mind understands that the tree is not actually looking at you, and that others don't hold magic power to affect the world and protect you from it. But that's how a child thinks, and that is reality to him. Their language both reflects and affects their present ideas about reality.

 

A good father would say, "No, it's OK Billy, the tree is not like that. It's just how you're perceiving it". Now to me, that would be something God would do, if God were in the parenting business, to in fact attempt to bring them to a higher understanding, a growth into mature thinking, rather than responding, "Don't worry Billy, have faith in your father for I, your mighty Dad shall slay that evil tree and spare you from it eating you alive!". In your analogy, that would be what was actually happening with God using childlike language. That to me is simply perpetuating misinformation, not teaching a higher truth.

 

I like my explanation how evolving man evolves his understanding of God much better than yours.

 

Then are you willing to apply this to the totality of the entire Christian religion itself as well, that it is expressive of man's intuition of that Reality behind the shadows, and that that Reality is itself beyond the Christian system, and all systems, to the point that all systems, Christianity itself is expressive of this process toward our evolution to the Divine? (I'll give you a prize if you say yes! ).

 

Actually, myths are both expressive of present self-sense, and higher intuition, in my view. Again, let's see where this goes first.

So sorry to miss your prize! I believe we sense the Reality beyond the shadows only because God calls to us - He reveals this to us, sometimes in hints and sometimes more thoroughly.

OK, now this is interesting. Put your mind to this. Let's say I agree that "God", or that Absolute is in fact, as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would say the Omega Point, that point that all things are ultimately drawn to. You anthropomorphically state this as God "calling" us and "He reveals this to us". Rather couldn't you say that all things evolves toward that Ultimate Reality, or the Divine, and that it is all already fully revealed but simply a case of disclosure as our minds open more and more to that Reality?

 

But you see, that would mean you would have to drop the language of Dad slaying the evil tree, man's mind evolving to higher understandings, rather than God handing us a book with a set of specific doctrinal truths that if we follow we will be saved.

 

 

(continued...)

[Antlerman]

(continuing...)

 

If God is infinite, then is it possible for there to be a definitive description, and a final authority, such as your Bible, on what that is? And as you say, "relationships should be alive," shouldn't that include understanding? As much as the Bible is man's expressions of his intuition of the Divine (as well as and expression of their present cultural and social evolution), then is it appropriate to Canonize it, to say this defines it and it should not move beyond it? Sort of like telling your spouse, "this is who you are, this is who I am, this is how it will always be."?

 

I say that these fundamental truths you speak of exist in all religions, and in all movements of human evolution. They are not owned, nor canonized by any religion or philosophy.

The relationship and our understanding grows and deepens with time and through different experiences. It’s a journey - we don’t “arrive” during this life.

And that I consider a fundamental flaw in your theology. It says be 'saved' and know God, then turns around and says you will never attain that in this life. Why not?

 

Revelation in the Bible helps us discern God’s Voice.

A book does this? So spiritual awareness is a cognitive process that comes through learning correct doctrines? You trust theologies got it right? Are they authoritative for you, and you must reject whatever you intuit that might violate a belief, a "truth" as presented to you from the Bible?

 

I don’t believe God stopped speaking at the end of the last second testament book - but though He continues to speak I don’t so far believe anything new needs to be added.

Why not? If you view the Bible as a "revealed" understanding given at different times to evolving sensibilities, i.e., the OT was first, then the NT, then you need to somehow conclude that human sensibilities and needs have not changed since the 1st Century! And if that's the case, then why give the NT after only 1500 years, and nothing else for another 2000 years? Again, we're back to my argument that these "revelations" are really symbolic expressions of man's evolving sensibilities. The reason Christianity struggles is because it refuses to let go of its dogma, and has become increasingly irrelevant to the needs of the modern world; tied too much to it's theologies and traditions, or in many cases it's spiritually and socially immature narcissism. What do you think the whole Jesus movement that started Christianity was about? It was about evolving stale dogmatic, antiquated religious thought with something more relevant for the time.

 

Anything I’ve heard Him personally say to me or to a Christian author, for example, is really already covered in Biblical revelation. I’m open to more revelation, but the “claimed” post-Biblical revelation I’ve seen has not been from the same Voice which speaks through scripture.

There's quite a lot I see in scripture that doesn't speak with that same Voice either. Baby and Bathwater. I don't accept that book as "the" word of God. At best, the expression of the Divine through human experience is not "God" as a separate entity speaking, but rather the imperfect expression of inspired individuals interpreting a possible transcendent experience in cultural and socially symbolic forms. Art can equally be "the word of God" in this sense: expressions of human experience of Divinity. That is why some of what is in the Bible I consider genuinely spiritual, while other parts are about other things, usually coming from other less transcendent expressions, such as political anger using God as a weapon, ethnocentric world views using a deity symbolically, etc.

 

I start with what is spiritual, and then discern legitimacy in religious traditions. You start the other way around, it seems.

 

I don’t see the fundamental Truth in other religions. Some of it - yes, but not all and not exactly (I see variations on a theme, so to speak).

You don't? What fundamental truth is that you don't see?

 

There you are speaking from your mythology, not reality as it is. The world is not Evil, even if there are destructive actions and forces in it. Instead everything is mostly drawn to order, towards survival, towards balance, equilibrium, etc. If it were Evil if as your Augustinian mythology says, we wouldn't be here. We'd all be dead. Instead the very opposite is true. We seek to overcome death, we seek life. That is by definition in your words, "Good".

 

The world is not evil - God created and said it was good. And though the world has fallen there is still good. But I thought things tended towards disorder. Are you speaking of a self-preservation instinct?

No, I'm talking dynamic systems theory. Things tend towards order. How do you think evolution works, starting from the simple to the complex? Things tending towards disorder is in a "closed system", the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We aren't in a closed system. Energy bombards this system, infusing it, and all the rest of the processes get activated, and that tends to self-organization, increasing complexity, and subsequent increasing depth.

 

We didn't fall from higher order to lower order, we are rising from lowest order to highest order. The theological fall has it backward. We didn't get kicked out of paradise in the fall, we awoke from an unconscious slumber to our sense of self separation of the intuited higher with our awakening conscious minds. We differentiated as individuals from the womb of our Mother. We realized our own nakedness before the world. That's your myth of Adam and Eve.

 

We didn't get thrown out of paradise, we woke up in terror and we crawled out of it after millenia of being another animal in the forest eating and dying and reproducing, to walking upright and aware and profoundly terrified at the prospect of existential death, a death of the illusory "self" we had awoken to. And so we continue to evolve, to that higher Mind. All the rest are mythologies we create to express that. That is your tradition as well as all others.

[stryper]

 

I don't believe in the "burn in hell" thing. I believe that particular language in scripture is not literal. Scripture is Jewish literature so I believe it should be read with an understanding of Hebraic thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics, etc. "Hell" is separation from God, created for those who don't wish to spend eternity with God.

 

I haven't read Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger". And (of course!) I don't think we're playthings for God! He created us for relationship.

 

 

Thus, anything that you say from this point on that is in anyway based on the bible, should be taken as philosophy and metaphor. Therefore, in my opinon, the entire excersie becomes mental masterbation. Fun but ultimately pointless.

 

My opinion is there are simply choices and consequences of choices. Some choice cause harm, some a benevolent, and some indifferent. God has nothing to do with it. People make choices based on what is going to provided them the most utility. Why do people choose to do "evil" acts? Simple answer is because they chose to. The choice has some goal. How that choice is viewed by others makes it evil even if the person doesn't veiw it that way at all.

[walker]

Fine, so put money on a table then tell your kids to leave it alone. See how long they last before your entrapment sucks them in.

Eventually, at some age, we do hope we can trust our kids. We teach them to not take other people’s things and we hope they will obey us. We hope they will trust that we want what’s best for them and that our guidance is good. We can limit tempting situations for them when they‘re young - but the older they get the more freedom they have, and the less we can shield them from temptations. More freedom is a good thing - we don’t want to treat them like young children forever … but we hope they will follow our good guidance (so they can live well).

 

Personally I think it unjust to hold me accountable for someone else's decision.

You would have made the same decision, Galien. We all would have done the same thing. But I don’t think God says to us “You are responsible for what Adam did.” We’re responsible for what we do.

[walker]

I notice walker how you never answer the hard questions. Why is that?

Which questions? I try to answer everything, though sometimes some discussion is needed.

[walker]

Actually we both ate the fruit. And if we were the first human created we would have done the same thing. God gave us choice and choice comes with the opportunity to decide we know what’s good for us - the opportunity to not trust God’s guidance. God didn’t want robots - He wanted people who chose to love Him and walk with Him. The opportunity for deep, real relationship comes with the opportunity to reject Him. God didn’t punish Adam and Eve - He didn’t have to. The consequences of their choice would bring natural “punishment”. And God not only didn’t punish them - He gave them Loving Grace. He made a way for relationship to be restored, for the “garden” to be restored, and for Life in all its Fullness to be restored.

Complete and utter bullshit. You have no idea what I would or would not have done. This is how I know its crap because I wouldn't have done it. If you don't believe that then you don't know any neurotic people do you? You know walker I have been listening to this bullshit since 1970, it's not like I haven't heard it all before mate. It still remains that if god knew we would all eat the fruit he had no business setting us up in the first place. I wanted god to be true more than anyone. 36 years of watching what goes on amongst christians and churches has made me sick to the botoom of my soul with the hypocrisy and dishonesty of it all. Most christians wouldn't know what humility was if it jumped up and bit their ass.

 

And so much for the loving grace, churches are full of sociopaths who get off on controlling others and using the bible to do it. What a mess.

I wrote my last post to you before seeing this post, so please forgive me if I sounded cold and/or redundant. Every person I know has at least once chosen to do something someone asked them not to do.

 

I agree - if we judge God’s Character by those who claim to follow Him it’s a problem. Not everyone who attends a church knows God or even wants to know Him (and that includes leaders). But even those who sincerely walk with Him aren’t perfect people.

[walker]

Why do you say it’s a one-sided relationship?

 

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Yeah I used to do this too. I finally worked out that I was talking to myself. If there is a god, which I doubt more with every passing day, he doesn't give a shit.

It can feel that way sometimes. I know.

[Phanta]

Both Adam and Eve did what any typical human would do - they blamed someone else for their own actions! As far as the earth, etc. being cursed because of their actions - God was telling them what now will happen - how their actions will affect them and the earth. Relationship and Trust had been broken - this had consequences.

Umm, yeah. They were punished.

 

mwc

 

Isn't the idea that there are two punishments? First, the physical (banishment) and then the spiritual?