Suffering for the Good of the World

[walterpthefirst]

18 hours ago, Weezer said:

I don't know if you saw my other posts about this, but another theory of how "god" and creation stories came about can be found in Anton Parks book, EDEN: The Sumerian version of Genesis.  And he has written other books on the subject.  Also Paul Wallis has written a series of "EDEN" books on the same subject.  If I'm not mistaken he is an ex-minister of the Anglican church and is from England.  Has also has lived in Australia.

 

I'm not sure I buy into all their theories, especially about the gods being ETs, but it does look like the biblical creation stories may have been lifted and revised from Sumerian writings, which were done long before the Bible was written. 

 

In one Sumerian story one of the gods decided to kill off the humans with a flood because the humans were making so much noise, the god couldn't sleep.  

 

They also say humans were created to be slaves/servants for the gods.  The whole story gets pretty complex.  If I understand it correctly, over a long period of time the gods fought and Yhwh(?) finally won, and then declared he was the one and only god.  He was one of the meanest and not well liked.  

 

I am now reading some different views on the subject.  Some of the stuff about ETs is "far fetched".  But the Hebrews borrowing from Sumerian creation stories sounds plausable.

 

Yes, I tend to think along the same lines, Weezer.

 

That is, rather than the Hebrew creation story springing into existence on its own, it owes a great deal to other creation myths from other, older cultures, like the Sumerians.  But did you notice how what you've said about the Sumerian writings seems to agree with my idea about these very ancient gods being little more than magnified humans?

 

Humans overlook things, miscalculate things and can't see the future consequences of their actions.  Whereas a perfect, timeless and all-knowing god cannot overlook anything, cannot miscalculate anything and can see the future consequences of their actions with 20/20 foresight.  And yet the Sumerian gods couldn't foresee that the slaves/servants they created would make so much noise that they couldn't sleep?

 

And since when has a perfect, timeless and all-knowing god ever needed to sleep?  See what I mean?  These very early, pre-Genesis gods were just magnified versions of humans.  And their all-too-human traits and limitations were carried over into the Hebrew creation myths.  For example, god regrets that he ever made humans and decides to destroy all but eight of them in a flood.  Really?  How can a perfect god do anything that he would regret?  Imperfect humans, yes.  A perfect god, no.  And yet, there it is in Genesis 6 : 5 - 7.

 

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

 

So how and why did god not foresee how great the wickedness of the human race would become before he made them?

How and why did he not foresee how every inclination of their hearts was only evil before he made them?

Why is it that, only after these things have come to pass that god sees the wickedness of humans?

Instead of foreseeing these things he seems to be watching them unfold in real time, like a human watching events happening without knowing what was coming.

An eternal and unchanging god cannot have his heart deeply troubled by events he did not know about - because he knows all things before they happen.

Nor can an unchanging and timeless god decide there and then to correct a mistake that should have been impossible for him to make in the first place.

 

No, I'm sorry Weezer, but I stand by what said earlier.  The way god is described in Genesis is very, very human indeed and not at all godlike.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

16 hours ago, Weezer said:

I also heard the argument that the OT should have never been attached to the NT.  It was done by the early church and writings were doctored to connect Jesus which the OT god.  And that Jesus actually "bad mouthed" the idea of the Jewish god.  And that wording was changed to include the concept of eternal Hell.  It wasn't clear whether the writer believed in the divinity of Jesus.  

 

I think that may have been in one of Paul Wallis books.

 

Another possibility??  At least it blows the possibility of an inerrant bible out of the water.  It is really interesting to see how some slight changes in the translation of words can make a big difference in different biblical concepts.

 

Indeed.

 

But thinking about it, an inerrant bible MUST describe an eternal, changeless, all-knowing and all powerful god acting in a way that is consistent with those qualities.

 

If, instead, it describes a god who discovers and regrets his mistakes after he makes them and after he fails to foresee them, then it simply cannot be inerrant.

 

Case closed!

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Again, not to sidetrack the thread too far:  I've heard it explained that the bible contains the infallible word of god; but because it was written by fallible men, that's why there are contradictions, mistranslations, acceptance of slavery, misogyny, and such, and obvious sociopolitical agendas.  I never believed that way, myself; but I knew others that did.  It makes it a lot easier to cherry-pick, when you can simply declare that any particular part you don't like isn't actually the infallible word of god, but rather an interjection of fallible men.

 

The questions that come to my mind would be:

1. Wouldn't an omniscient god know that his infallible word would be corrupted by fallible men?

2. Wouldn't an omnibenevolent god want to prevent said corruption so as to keep his message of mercy and salvation crystal clear?

3. Wouldn't an omnipotent god be able to do so?

 

For me, then, the bible itself is evidence that the god it describes cannot exist.  Because the contradictions and such demonstrate that either god knew it would be corrupted and wanted to prevent it, but could not; or he could have prevented it and would have wanted to, but he didn't know it would be corrupted. 

 

Or, more likely, given his benign indifference toward suffering, he knew it would be corrupted and could have prevented it; but he just didn't want to.  Of course, he would have also known the appalling suffering that would result from his bible being less than infallible; but I reckon he was okay with that.

 

In any case, it is obvious that the bible is not an infallible book; and the god it describes cannot possibly exist.

[walterpthefirst]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Again, not to sidetrack the thread too far:  I've heard it explained that the bible contains the infallible word of god; but because it was written by fallible men, that's why there are contradictions, mistranslations, acceptance of slavery, misogyny, and such, and obvious sociopolitical agendas.  I never believed that way, myself; but I knew others that did.  It makes it a lot easier to cherry-pick, when you can simply declare that any particular part you don't like isn't actually the infallible word of god, but rather an interjection of fallible men.

 

The questions that come to my mind would be:

1. Wouldn't an omniscient god know that his infallible word would be corrupted by fallible men?

2. Wouldn't an omnibenevolent god want to prevent said corruption so as to keep his message of mercy and salvation crystal clear?

3. Wouldn't an omnipotent god be able to do so?

 

For me, then, the bible itself is evidence that the god it describes cannot exist.  Because the contradictions and such demonstrate that either god knew it would be corrupted and wanted to prevent it, but could not; or he could have prevented it and would have wanted to, but he didn't know it would be corrupted. 

 

Or, more likely, given his benign indifference toward suffering, he knew it would be corrupted and could have prevented it; but he just didn't want to.  Of course, he would have also known the appalling suffering that would result from his bible being less than infallible; but I reckon he was okay with that.

 

In any case, it is obvious that the bible is not an infallible book; and the god it describes cannot possibly exist.

 

Upon reflection Prof, I think that god's evil goes much further than simply being indifferent to suffering or failing to prevent his word from being corrupted.

 

I submit that god actively tricks those he claims to love, trapping them with laws and commands, in the full knowledge that these very laws and commands will seal their doom.  And I don't necessarily mean the way he dealt with Adam in Eden.  No, god's trickery goes much further and much deeper.  As I will explain.

 

In the OT he selects the Jews as his chosen people and then protects and nurtures them, leading the twelve tribes that will become the nation of Israel out of Egypt.  Before that he sealed a pact with Abraham, swearing to give Abraham's descendants a land of their own where they would become a nation.  For the spiritual and physical welfare of the Jews god gave the Law to them through Moses.  

 

Since that time millions upon millions of Jews have held firmly to that Law, believing that by doing so they are being obedient to him and that by doing this they are justified in his sight.  During the many persecutions the Jews have faced over the centuries they have held on to the Law in the face of punishments, torture and even execution.  The Law has come to effectively define what it meant to be a Jew.  And. of course, god would have foreknown every last detail of the Jews devotion to the Law, long before he handed it down to Moses on Mount Sinai.

 

But look what the apostle Paul has to say to the church of Galatia about using the Law to be justified before god!

 

Galatians 2 : 15 & 16.

 

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 

16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

 

Here, the 'we' is not all Jews, but only those Jews who, like Paul, have been born again of the spirit of Jesus Christ.  The remainder and vast majority of Jews, then and now, still believe that they are justified before god by following his Law.  So, can you see the full historical sweep of god's grand plan to cheat the Jews out of their inheritance?  That inheritance not being their land, but god himself?

 

With perfect foreknowledge and perfect foresight he gave the Jews the Law, even though he knew that it could not and would not justify them in his sight.  Only faith in Jesus (which no unsaved Jew can accept) can justify them before god.  The sheer calculated malice aforethought here is staggering!  God gave the Law to the Jews and then let them believe that it would justify them in his sight, while all the time knowing that he had no intention of letting it do so.

 

This is entrapment, not of a person or a small group of people, but of a whole nation!  Over the centuries, by the words and deeds of patriarchs, kings and prophets, by the swearing of oaths and the giving of many promises god built the Jews up into believing that their adherence to his Law was their salvation and justification.  Then, after the death of a carpenter's son on a cross, god pulls the rug from underneath the Jews, letting it be known that they can only be justified in his sight by putting their faith in that carpenter's son.

 

Of course he knew beforehand that the Jews could never accept or even tolerate the idea of doing this.  He knew this when he was with Moses on Mount Sinai.  He knew this when the first and second temples were being guilt.  He knew this all along but kept quiet about it.  Thanks to god's duplicity towards the Jews almost all of his 'chosen people' will burn forever in hell.

 

 

So No, Prof.  God is not just evil to the core because he is indifferent to suffering or because he was lax about the purity of his message of salvation.  He is maximally and indescribably evil for lying to and tricking his so-called chosen people with the very words that he claims are his message of salvation.  A message that is poison to the Jews.  A message that they eagerly consume in the mistaken belief that it is their medicine and antidote to sin.  

 

As I said before, the degree of malice aforethought shown by god is just staggering!

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[freshstart]

On 4/29/2023 at 8:31 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Or, more likely, given his benign indifference toward suffering, he knew it would be corrupted and could have prevented it; but he just didn't want to. 

This is the stance my Christian family members take. . . . followed by "his ways are not our ways" and "we don't know his plan, we just know its perfect"   blah blah blah.  We are literally expected to never understand it, just follow it.  That is what "faith" is all about.  How do you argue that?  Its okay to NOT comprehend the rationale and reasoning of the god you worship, just blindly follow.  Just because the bible says so. Even though every Christian agrees neither God nor Jesus wrote anything in the bible.  OT God made a big production of writing the ten commandments on stone, but couldn't be bothered to write the actual bible. Why not? (Christian answer:  We can ask when we see him in the afterlife).

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, freshstart said:

This is the stance my Christian family members take. . . . followed by "his ways are not our ways" and "we don't know his plan, we just know its perfect"   blah blah blah.  We are literally expected to never understand it, just follow it.  That is what "faith" is all about.  How do you argue that?  Its okay to NOT comprehend the rationale and reasoning of the god you worship, just blindly follow.  Just because the bible says so. Even though every Christian agrees neither God nor Jesus wrote anything in the bible.  OT God made a big production of writing the ten commandments on stone, but couldn't be bothered to write the actual bible. Why not? (Christian answer:  We can ask when we see him in the afterlife).

 

Did you and I grow up in the same family??  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 4/28/2023 at 10:15 PM, Weezer said:

 

In one Sumerian story one of the gods decided to kill off the humans with a flood because the humans were making so much noise, the god couldn't sleep.  

 

No big change to the story, but the more I think about it, I believe the god didn't cause the flood, he just knew it was going to happen  and decided to not warn the humans ahead of time.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, freshstart said:

Its okay to NOT comprehend the rationale and reasoning of the god you worship, just blindly follow.  Just because the bible says so.

Surely that's the point.  If we know that the bible isn't perfect and infallible, how can we be sure that the "plan" we're expected to follow really comes from god?  

[Edgarcito]

13 hours ago, freshstart said:

This is the stance my Christian family members take. . . . followed by "his ways are not our ways" and "we don't know his plan, we just know its perfect"   blah blah blah.  We are literally expected to never understand it, just follow it.  That is what "faith" is all about.  How do you argue that?  Its okay to NOT comprehend the rationale and reasoning of the god you worship, just blindly follow.  Just because the bible says so. Even though every Christian agrees neither God nor Jesus wrote anything in the bible.  OT God made a big production of writing the ten commandments on stone, but couldn't be bothered to write the actual bible. Why not? (Christian answer:  We can ask when we see him in the afterlife).

Given what we know now via science, it seems suspect that the writers would intentionally use faith as the bait.  In other words, I don't think they knew that ultimately, we couldn't explain our existence/place in the universe.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Given what we know now via science, it seems suspect that the writers would intentionally use faith as the bait.  In other words, I don't think they knew that ultimately, we couldn't explain our existence/place in the universe.

Given what a perfect god should know via omniscience, it seems suspect that his divinely inspired "word" would contain contradictions and inexplicable mysteries.  In other words, he should have been able to say exactly what he meant, without leaving it open to 41,000 different interpretations. 

 

But that is not the point of this thread.  That god does deliberately violate free will by way of his plan, will, and higher purpose, is.  And this directly contradicts the idea that suffering exists because god does not violate free will. 

 

Ultimately, it does not matter if we understand god's higher purpose or not.  If he executes his plan and/or purpose,  he will, by default, violate our free will.  This fact does not change simply based on whether we understand it or not.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Moreover, whatever our purpose or place in the universe, and whether or not we understand it is irrelevant to the point,  that god violates free will by implementation of his own purpose and plan. This directly contradicts the argument that god allows suffering because he refuses to violate our free will.

[Edgarcito]

50 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ultimately, it does not matter if we understand god's higher purpose or not.  If he executes his plan and/or purpose,  he will, by default, violate our free will.  This fact does not change simply based on whether we understand it or not.  

What is God's higher purpose in your opinion please sir.

[Edgarcito]

Let's suppose it's eternal life.  I gather you would say that your free will would be violated by the choice of Christ or not, Am I guessing correctly?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

37 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

What is God's higher purpose in your opinion please sir.

Ed, I do not believe in god.  As a result, I do not think god has a higher purpose.  However, neither of these are relevant to the point.  If god has a higher purpose, then he will necessarily violate free will in order to accomplish it.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's suppose it's eternal life.  I gather you would say that your free will would be violated by the choice of Christ or not, Am I guessing correctly?

No.  

[Edgarcito]

I think in a case of eternal life, it DOES matter that we understand, because it I don't see how in Christ violates free will.  You're welcome to continue or not, no biggle.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I think in a case of eternal life, it DOES matter that we understand, because it I don't see how in Christ violates free will.  You're welcome to continue or not, no biggle.

Perhaps you could rephrase in an effort to make sense.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ultimately, it does not matter if we understand god's higher purpose or not.  If he executes his plan and/or purpose,  he will, by default, violate our free will.  This fact does not change simply based on whether we understand it or not.  

I'm saying that in the case of eternal life, if that is God's higher purpose, and his plan, then it doesn't, by default, violate our free will, our "choice".  You were a Christain for many years, life/eternal life seems to be a pretty good guess imo for a higher purpose....

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's suppose it's eternal life.  I gather you would say that your free will would be violated by the choice of Christ or not, Am I guessing correctly?

 

If god's purpose is eternal life, then, according to scripture, everyone (without fail) will get it.

 

There are no exceptions, Ed.

 

Some will live eternally with god, in heaven.

 

Others will live eternally, without god, in hell.

 

But everyone will receive eternal life from god.

 

Whether they want to or not.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I think in a case of eternal life, it DOES matter that we understand, because it I don't see how in Christ violates free will.  You're welcome to continue or not, no biggle.

 

If understanding does matter, then why did god not permit Adam to understand the meaning of his warning about that forbidden tree?

 

You are on record as saying that it shouldn't have mattered if Adam understood or not - he should just have obeyed without understanding.

 

So, are you now beginning to accept that people should understand the choices god gives them?

 

Or not?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm saying that in the case of eternal life, if that is God's higher purpose, and his plan, then it doesn't, by default, violate our free will, our "choice".  You were a Christain for many years, life/eternal life seems to be a pretty good guess imo for a higher purpose....

Do you think the decision to accept salvation or not is the only decision to which a person's free will applies?  Do you think salvation is the only choice where a person's free will matters?

 

Sure, a 10-year-old girl who was sold into sexual slavery might still have the freedom to accept jesus as her personal savior (if she survives long enough...).  But why the hell would she accept the same god who deliberately planned for her to be brutalized and raped throughout her childhood and youth?  Why the hell should she accept such a god, knowing that he took her free will away concerning her own bodily autonomy and allowed her to suffer such indignity?  Or, do you think her free will doesn't matter where the rape of her own body and the abuse of her own mind and spirit are concerned?

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you think the decision to accept salvation or not is the only decision to which a person's free will applies?  Do you think salvation is the only choice where a person's free will matters?

 

Sure, a 10-year-old girl who was sold into sexual slavery might still have the freedom to accept jesus as her personal savior (if she survives long enough...).  But why the hell would she accept the same god who deliberately planned for her to be brutalized and raped throughout her childhood and youth?  Why the hell should she accept such a god, knowing that he took her free will away concerning her own bodily autonomy and allowed her to suffer such indignity?  Or, do you think her free will doesn't matter where the rape of her own body and the abuse of her own mind and spirit are concerned?

I put Walter on ignore and it’s not working.  Could you please check that setting.  Thx

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you think the decision to accept salvation or not is the only decision to which a person's free will applies?  Do you think salvation is the only choice where a person's free will matters?

 

Sure, a 10-year-old girl who was sold into sexual slavery might still have the freedom to accept jesus as her personal savior (if she survives long enough...).  But why the hell would she accept the same god who deliberately planned for her to be brutalized and raped throughout her childhood and youth?  Why the hell should she accept such a god, knowing that he took her free will away concerning her own bodily autonomy and allowed her to suffer such indignity?  Or, do you think her free will doesn't matter where the rape of her own body and the abuse of her own mind and spirit are concerned?

My statement was regarding eternal life and free will.  Can we stick to that discussion as that’s the instance I do see your statement being correct.  Thx

[walterpthefirst]

Sticking to the topic of eternal life and free will, which one of these is a free choice?

 

1.

Man is free to choose eternal life with god and if he refuses is not penalised, but ceases to exist when he dies.

 

2.

Man is free to choose eternal life with god, but if he refuses he will be penalised with eternal torment in hell.

 

 

Which one is the free choice?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I put Walter on ignore and it’s not working.  Could you please check that setting.  Thx

I'll see what I can do.