Suffering for the Good of the World

[◊ Weezer ◊]

23 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I really don't think the old testament God and the new testament God of Love and mercy are the same God.

 

Have you considered that neither of them actually exist?  That they are concepts fabricated by humans.  When that registered in my mind, the fear melted away.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Have you considered that neither of them actually exist?  That they are concepts fabricated by humans.  When that registered in my mind, the fear melted away.

Weezer,

 

I'm an EXChristian. No, I don't think either exist and I am beyond certain that all forms of God in the bible anf other religions are made up. 

 

That wasn't the first thing that clicked tho. It was that the events of the Bible didn't actually happen and then that it was all made up. 

 

But for the purposes of conversing about the subject I wanted to point out that the descriptions between the new and old testament concerning the same God were very different. But that isn't new with Canaanite religions. They were a polytheistic society that splintered off at some point with one group becoming monolateral. Believing in multiple Gods but only worshipping the one. Then a monotheistic society that only believed in the one God El who eventually was given the name of his son Yahweh. But El never left the scene. Even Jesus called out to El on the cross. 

 

So around the time of Jesus I suppose there was a shift in ideology. And God became this all loving merciful God. It had to be very a foreign concept for most jews. No wonder that if Jesus did exist, and if he was preaching that message, that it would have been considered heresy. In a way Jesus was a just execution according to there own laws. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

Let me clarify this. I know that both testaments are based on the same God, as in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But the personalities given to God between the two testaments are very different. However, revelations really brings back that old testament God at the end for a fiery war against Satan and everyone who hasn't believed on Jesus. Sending plagues and Casting Nero and everyone else into the lake of fire to burn for eternity. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

But for the purposes of conversing about the subject I wanted to point out that the descriptions between the new and old testament concerning the same God were very different. But that isn't new with Canaanite religions. They were a polytheistic society that splintered off at some point with one group becoming monolateral. Believing in multiple Gods but only worshipping the one. Then a monotheistic society that only believed in the one God El who eventually was given the name of his son Yahweh. But El never left the scene. Even Jesus called out to El on the cross. 

 

So around the time of Jesus I suppose there was a shift in ideology. And God became this all loving merciful God. It had to be very a foreign concept for most jews. No wonder that if Jesus did exist, and if he was preaching that message, that it would have been considered heresy. In a way Jesus was a just execution according to there own laws. 

 

 

I think you've answered your own point, DB.

 

The apparent differences between the Old and the New Testament gods are most likely down to ideological shifts over time, caused by the simple fact that no society or culture ever stays the same for very long.  New ideas displace old ones and wars, migrations, famines, plagues, etc., change the ways in which old gods are viewed by new generations.  We only have to look at the splintering, shifting and mutating history of Christianity itself to see how a religion changes over time.

 

Also, the fact that Revelation seems to revisit the vengeful Yahweh of old is probably just the apostle John (if he did write it) trying to use OT authority and prestige to bolster the credentials of this upstart god who was the son of a Galilean carpenter. 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

If you believe Jesus actually existed, and I think it is possible that he did, there are 2 theories as to where some of his ideas came from.  one is that he traveled to the east and studied under eastern gurus between 12 and 30 years of age.  (the years of his life missing in the bible)  The second is the one I think is most logical.  That he studied under the Essenes which were close by where his family lived.  Some of the beatitudes were almost word for word from Essene writings, and they seem to have borrowed from eastern thinking.  

 

Either way, the jews were not happy that someone was chipping at their foundations.  And  if I remember correctly, there was a big argument as to whether Revelation should be added to the NT, which came years later.

 

And I believe there was a guy (forgot his name) contemporary with Jesus that had basically the same message.  The book I was reading gave a lot of credit for the "change in gods message" to the Essenes.

 

[Edgarcito]

On 5/19/2023 at 5:24 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You're still conflating faith with reason, Ed.  You asked "how do we know..."  But knowledge requires an adequate explanation (i.e. the use of reason),  which, by your own admission, cannot be provided in this case.  In the absence of reason, you are appealing to faith as a means of knowing; but faith is the antithesis of knowledge.  Faith is acceptance without knowledge.  Therefore, faith cannot provide an adequate explanation of how we can know. 

 

This is where learning how to effectively employ Occam's Razor would greatly benefit you.  You cannot explain one inexplicable by appealing to another, even greater, inexplicable.  But that is precisely what you are doing here.  You are appealing to a mythological hero, who cannot be demonstrated to have existed, having wonderous god-level powers, which cannot be demonstrated to exist, to explain genuine, real-world, demonstrable suffering. 

 

It simply does not work.  Because, while it may explain the suffering part of the equation, now you have added several new levels to the equation that require explanation.  Explaining the existence of jesus is only the beginning.  The trinity also needs an explanation; and how could jesus be fully man and fully god.  This raises even further questions: how could he be fully man, but not born into sin?  How could he experience death if he was fully god?

 

Rather than offer an adequate explanation, you have further confounded the issue.  Faith is not the answer here, Ed.  Nor is an appeal to mythology. 

 

We have no reason to think these things will ultimately be granted; and you cannot provide us with one.  This is the crux of the matter; and the answer to your original question. 

We can't adequately explain Love, but people die routinely sacrificing themselves for the continuation of life of others.  Granted it's not an explanation of knowledge that you would desire, but truthful experience nonetheless.  Likewise, knowledge can't an explanation that these things won't be granted.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We can't adequately explain Love, but people die routinely sacrificing themselves for the continuation of life of others.  Granted it's not an explanation of knowledge that you would desire, but truthful experience nonetheless.  Likewise, knowledge can't an explanation that these things won't be granted.

I don't dispute your statement beyond pointing out that it is a false analogy and a false equivalence.  Yes, we cannot adequately explain Love; but we have ample reason to know it exists, is real, and can be experienced.  We have absolutely no reason to believe that god will reward those he allows to suffer, that their suffering has any cosmic/eternal/divine significance, or that god is even real, in control, and has a plan.  Therefore, comparing suffering for the higher good to a very real positive human experience (Love) is still a conflation of the issue.  Good effort, though.

[walterpthefirst]

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

We can't adequately explain Love, but people die routinely sacrificing themselves for the continuation of life of others.  Granted it's not an explanation of knowledge that you would desire, but truthful experience nonetheless.  Likewise, knowledge can't an explanation that these things won't be granted.

 

Edgarcito,

 

This argument could be made by people of other faiths in support of their particular god.  "We can't adequately explain Love... therefore, Allah."  Or (insert the name of your god here).  So, while this argument is a good effort, it does not specifically identify Jesus as the one who will reward those he allows to suffer.  Nor does it identify Jesus as the god in control or the god who has a plan.

 

Yes, you can claim that you know these things by faith.  But, as before, so can anyone else from these other religions claim to know the same things.  Your claim and their claims are exactly equal.  And so nothing is resolved or better known by answering such questions by faith. 

 

If Occam's Razor were applied to this equality between different religions and their equal lack of hard evidence it would suggest that they all originate from the emotions and minds of their various believers.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

On 5/28/2023 at 12:21 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I don't dispute your statement beyond pointing out that it is a false analogy and a false equivalence.  Yes, we cannot adequately explain Love; but we have ample reason to know it exists, is real, and can be experienced.  We have absolutely no reason to believe that god will reward those he allows to suffer, that their suffering has any cosmic/eternal/divine significance, or that god is even real, in control, and has a plan.  Therefore, comparing suffering for the higher good to a very real positive human experience (Love) is still a conflation of the issue.  Good effort, though.

I don't know that your response is valid.  It appears since we don't actually assign any physiological mechanism(s) to love, then we could just as easily swap the terms (Love and God), and be in the same place.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know that your response is valid.  It appears since we don't actually assign any physiological mechanism(s) to love, then we could just as easily swap the terms (Love and God), and be in the same place.  

Physiological mechanisms are not the only applicable metric, though, Ed.  Is love reproducible?  Certainly, and in all of its forms.  Is god?  No.  Is love testable?  Again, absolutely and in all of its forms.  Is god?  Again, a resounding no.  The bible claims that god is love,  then goes on to describe a god who is anything but love.  And the problem of evil/suffering puts the final nail in the coffin for me.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 5/28/2023 at 7:50 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

This argument could be made by people of other faiths in support of their particular god.  "We can't adequately explain Love... therefore, Allah."  Or (insert the name of your god here).  So, while this argument is a good effort, it does not specifically identify Jesus as the one who will reward those he allows to suffer.  Nor does it identify Jesus as the god in control or the god who has a plan.

 

Yes, you can claim that you know these things by faith.  But, as before, so can anyone else from these other religions claim to know the same things.  Your claim and their claims are exactly equal.  And so nothing is resolved or better known by answering such questions by faith. 

 

If Occam's Razor were applied to this equality between different religions and their equal lack of hard evidence it would suggest that they all originate from the emotions and minds of their various believers.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know that your response is valid.  It appears since we don't actually assign any physiological mechanism(s) to love, then we could just as easily swap the terms (Love and God), and be in the same place.  

Also, as Walt has pointed out, your argument can just as easily be made by a Hindu or Muslim and have equal validity.  You might be trying to ignore Walt; but your ways are not my ways.

[Edgarcito]

24 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Physiological mechanisms are not the only applicable metric, though, Ed.  Is love reproducible?  Certainly, and in all of its forms.  Is god?  No.  Is love testable?  Again, absolutely and in all of its forms.  Is god?  Again, a resounding no.  The bible claims that god is love,  then goes on to describe a god who is anything but love.  And the problem of evil/suffering puts the final nail in the coffin for me.

Reproducible what? Testable how?  And there's a standard or any type of chemical or physical mechanism?  Not trying to be stubborn, it's just you and I know better.  I understand, I'll just leave it here until I can swing back by.  Thanks for the effort.  And I'm not going to respond to Walt.  His motive is not nice.  I don't wish to participate in that. Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Reproducible what? Testable how?  And there's a standard or any type of chemical or physical mechanism?  Not trying to be stubborn, it's just you and I know better.

Are you the only person who has ever experienced love?  Do only Americans feel it?  Are Asians also capable of understanding that Love is an art form?  It seems pretty reproducible to me, given that all of humanity, irrespective of race, ethnicity, culture, and creed share it in common.

 

Have you ever had kids?  And how often did they test your love?  Ever tested someone's love for you?  Yes.  We both do know better.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

And I'm not going to respond to Walt.  His motive is not nice.  I don't wish to participate in that.

Nevertheless, not thy will, but mine, be done. 

 

A Mohammedan can also claim that since he cannot adequately explain Love, it must be Allah.  What would you say to him?  How would you convince him that it is your jesus, and not his Allah, who allows 10-year-old girls to be sold into sexual slavery, because he loves them and will someday reward them?

[Edgarcito]

13 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Are you the only person who has ever experienced love?  Do only Americans feel it?  Are Asians also capable of understanding that Love is an art form?  It seems pretty reproducible to me, given that all of humanity, irrespective of race, ethnicity, culture, and creed share it in common.

 

Have you ever had kids?  And how often did they test your love?  Ever tested someone's love for you?  Yes.  We both do know better.

I have a buddy that has never had children and his attitude towards them is totally different than someone with children.  Sad actually.  But what metrics are we to use, sacrifice, suffering, grace, patience?  And what method are we to use comparing levels and to what standard.  Not beating on you, just trying to make my point.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I have a buddy that has never had children and his attitude towards them is totally different than someone with children.  Sad actually.  But what metrics are we to use, sacrifice, suffering, grace, patience?  And what method are we to use comparing levels and to what standard.  Not beating on you, just trying to make my point.

 

This is a good point, but before you can talk about measuring something, we first need a definition for it.  What is love?  . . . baby don't hurt me . . . no more  ((couldn't help myself))

 

What is the agreed upon definition for love?  I think we will find that is much like god, each person is going to hold their own internal barometer for what constitutes love, though there will be broad categories of overlap, almost like individual denominations or religions.

 

It's hard to measure something when there is no agreement on its limits.

[Edgarcito]

20 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

This is a good point, but before you can talk about measuring something, we first need a definition for it.  What is love?  . . . baby don't hurt me . . . no more  ((couldn't help myself))

 

What is the agreed upon definition for love?  I think we will find that is much like god, each person is going to hold their own internal barometer for what constitutes love, though there will be broad categories of overlap, almost like individual denominations or religions.

 

It's hard to measure something when there is no agreement on its limits.

Right, like a grand unified theory, but the human version. ... 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I have a buddy that has never had children and his attitude towards them is totally different than someone with children.  Sad actually.  But what metrics are we to use, sacrifice, suffering, grace, patience?  And what method are we to use comparing levels and to what standard.  Not beating on you, just trying to make my point.

Why would we need to measure or compare to any standard something that all of humanity has shared, throughout every generation, presumably since its inception?  Do you need to measure joy to experience it?  Do you need to compare your anger to mine in order to validate it?

 

The difference between emotions and "god," and the point I'm trying to make, is that if you ask anyone from anywhere in the world, "what is anger?", the similarities and overlaps in the answers will far outweigh the differences.  Same with love and joy.  

 

But not so with "god."  A Hindu's answer would differ so greatly from a Muslim's that it would almost seem like they're talking about two different subjects.  Same with your idea of god, which obviously differs from the 40,000 other christian concepts of it.

 

Speaking of which, Ed, how would you counter a Muslim who said that since we cannot adequately describe Love, it must be Allah?

 

Ultimately, though, an inadequate explanation of anything isn't going to get you any closer to demonstrating that god will someday reward a person's suffering, nor offering a rebuttal to the argument that god's "greater good" necessarily violates free will.  Rabbit trails are fun distractions; but don't think for a moment that you will get off the hook that easily. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Do you realize, Ed, that all you're really presenting here is a variation on the god-of-the-gaps argument?  Your original question was, "How do we know these things won't be granted eventually?"  To this you were given a perfectly reasonable answer as to how we no reason to think they will.  Of course, that doesn't appeal to your cognitive dissonance (disguised as stubbornness); so you immediately presented a "gap".  "Knowledge cannot adequately explain [gap] therefore faith!!! " But when flaws were pointed our in that line of reasoning, you pulled out a different "gap."  "We can't adequately explain Love therefore jesus!!!."

 

Granted, there aren't many arguments for a christian apologist to choose from; and none of them are very good.  So the fact that you want to redirect everyone's attention to the gaps isn't surprising.  But it doesn't address the problem of suffering.  It never will.  And that should tell you something about your god.

 

god doesn't exist in the gaps, Ed; and the fact that you have to look for him there really ought to be a reality check for you.

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

 

I would suggest that when it comes to religious faith, the name of the game is not to answer questions, discover truths or to understand anything better.  Instead, the name of the game is simply to keep the ball of faith rolling along.

 

Earlier I wrote this to Ed...

 

Yes, you can claim that you know these things by faith.  But, as before, so can anyone else from these other religions claim to know the same things.  Your claim and their claims are exactly equal.  And so nothing is resolved or better known by answering such questions by faith. 

 

You can continue asking Ed for answers, but so long as he relies on faith he won't be able to answer them and probably has no interest in doing so.  If he tries to answer his beliefs will be shown to be lacking in evidence, devoid of reason, contradictory and morally repugnant.  Hence the shifting, dodging, equivocating and deflection.  He knows this.

 

If my suggestion above is so, then Ed, like billions of others, just use faith to feel better and to comfort themselves.  No more than that.  

 

 

Buuuut...

 

Please do carry on asking him these questions.  Even if he will never answer or never admit that his faith is empty, at least your questions and his lack of answers might help others see the light and finally give up on their faith.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Instead, the name of the game is simply to keep the ball of faith rolling along.

That's an awfully long name for such a silly game.  In future, let's just call it "faithball".

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Even if he will never answer or never admit that his faith is empty, at least your questions and his lack of answers might help others see the light and finally give up on their faith.

Indeed, this is the name of our game.  But we can call it "ask-it-ball."

[Edgarcito]

On 5/30/2023 at 5:08 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why would we need to measure or compare to any standard something that all of humanity has shared, throughout every generation, presumably since its inception?  Do you need to measure joy to experience it?  Do you need to compare your anger to mine in order to validate it?

 

The difference between emotions and "god," and the point I'm trying to make, is that if you ask anyone from anywhere in the world, "what is anger?", the similarities and overlaps in the answers will far outweigh the differences.  Same with love and joy.  

 

But not so with "god."  A Hindu's answer would differ so greatly from a Muslim's that it would almost seem like they're talking about two different subjects.  Same with your idea of god, which obviously differs from the 40,000 other christian concepts of it.

 

Speaking of which, Ed, how would you counter a Muslim who said that since we cannot adequately describe Love, it must be Allah?

 

Ultimately, though, an inadequate explanation of anything isn't going to get you any closer to demonstrating that god will someday reward a person's suffering, nor offering a rebuttal to the argument that god's "greater good" necessarily violates free will.  Rabbit trails are fun distractions; but don't think for a moment that you will get off the hook that easily. 

This is a total miss essentially.  IF the commonality were so great as you proclaim, then the collective understanding would be equally great.  Yet and yea verily, it's not. Hence still the need for religion and/or better understanding....ask almost anyone having a bad day...

[Edgarcito]

Suffering is the product of NOT knowing, not understanding.....paraphrasing, "Forgive them Father, they do not know."

Acceptance, followed by admittance and then FAITH until our knowledge base changes....which we know is finite.

 

So you can continue to blow smoke or just grasp the mechanism of suffering and get better understanding others.....you know, communion and love your neighbor...and knowing the one who DOES know, Christ.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This is a total miss essentially.  IF the commonality were so great as you proclaim, then the collective understanding would be equally great.  Yet and yea verily, it's not. Hence still the need for religion and/or better understanding....ask almost anyone having a bad day...

Oh, so, in other words, there's a gap, therefore god.  I'm not buying it.

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Oh, so, in other words, there's a gap, therefore god.  I'm not buying it.

Yes, there's a gap....yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.  And you nor any amount of understanding you think you possess will not fill that gap.