religious question - Ben-Hur (1959) Discussion

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

That's a question as old as faith itself. My suggestion is you ask a clergyman -- or several clergymen. Doubt you'll get a satisfactory answer here.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

As you say, this is a question with endless answers. But imagine how much deeper and more compassionate the characters have grown in the suffering they have experienced.

If God intervened to prevent all suffering before it happened, it might be a world but nothing like human experience. More like an endless episode of Teletubbies.

reply

[–] BenignPillows 8 years ago

But imagine how much deeper and more compassionate the characters have grown in the suffering they have experienced.

Judah didn't become deep and compassionate, he became bitter and hateful. His change was only because he met Jesus in person, not because of his suffering.

I'm a mental health professional, I see daily what suffering does to people, especially during childhood, when the brain is still developing. Not only can it traumatize you, but it can affect your whole personality, and not in a good way.

There are exceptions, but that's what they are - exceptions.

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is a load of bull.

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

reply

[–] athomed 9 years ago

Judah received strength at pivotal points on his journey when he needed it most. I'm not a believer, but a phrase you'll hear commonly is "God works in mysterious ways."

___
I used to think I knew everything about the world. Now I just know that it's round.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

if God is supposedly all-knowing, all-merciful and supposedly loves us, why is there so much cruelty and suffering in the world and why is it allowed to continue?

Because - my theory as a panentheist (not pantheist) - God is real, but is not a creator. Not being a creator, God is not responsible for the goods and the bads of "creation" or Nature. Not his job, not his responsibility to miraculously intervene in the mindless cycles of force which make up the cosmos.

But, even if God is not a creator, couldn't he intervene via miracles - just to be a good guy? No, I don't think so, because God is nonmaterial Spirit and by nature probably couldn't intervene even if "He" wanted to. This doesn't mean that God is impotent, it simply means that, as regards material processes, God is not mighty and certainly not all-mighty. "He" doesn't need to be in order to be God.

God's "power", such as it is, is confined to assisting the spiritual transformation of sentient beings in all planets and all dimensions - not the miraculous modification of bodies and natural processes. Thus, God's "work" takes place in our deepest subjectivity, our self, our soul - not in the external world of suffering and dying "meat" bodies. The soul's transformation, for sentient beings, is utterly crucial and vastly more important than divinely-wrought magic tricks that miraculously manipulate matter.

So, suffering exists in the world not because of a neglectful or punishing/vengeful "Creator". It is due simply to the fact that the material universe/"Creation"/"Nature" is composed of nothing but mindless cycles of force which do not care, and are not capable of caring, for the sentient beings they torture and annihilate. That's why we suffer. It's what Buddhism terms "Samsara".

Fortunately, above, beyond, and behind this crucified world lies a truly transcendent God, a very real, silent Presence whose nature is Compassion, and whose "Light" is infinite and unimpeded.

So take heart, OP: if you should ever seek a God who is the ultimate spiritual transformer and whose very inactivity in the physical world explains "His" non-interventionary nature, you will find that God in the mystical literature of divine union experiencers...where God is primary experienced not as a Creator, but as a subtle but transformative Presence who leads beings away from the hopelessly Samsaric world, and into his very Life.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Your post is well-written and seems a clear explanation of your position. Thanks for that. However, what I'm taking from it is that our physical existence is something entirely separate from our spiritual existence. I grant there is a difference, but I have trouble with the implication that the two worlds never intersect -- which means, to me at least, what we do here is utterly irrelivant to what is expected of us spiritually. I.e., when Jesus spoke of the two greatest Commandments -- love God and love our neighbors as ourselves -- He should have stopped after the first and saved Himself a lot of trouble. ???

Additionally, we're still left with the question -- who created the physical universe and to what purpose? Or, are we talking "steady state" and there is no purpose?

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Thanks for the kind words. I do think that our spiritual existence is irreconcilable with our physical experience, that is, they are two different levels or categories, i.e., the brain is something, but the person is someone; we see the outside from the inside; even scientific/external knowledge is acquired only in-and-by our nonmaterial, subjective psyche. Etc.

To try to answer your moral question, which involves the "care and feeding" of others' bodies as well as environmental care of the planet - I can only guess that matter has a purpose which is given meaning when we subsume matter into a wider spiritual classification, i.e., the practice of compassion. Without wounded, suffering, sick bodies, and the vulnerable minds to which they are attached, I don't see how the soul or the person can practice compassion or walk the path of dying to ego and rising into a new life centered in Spirit.

Compassion in this connotation is very evident in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, as well as in religions generally. But the point, to me, is that bodies do not receive enlightenment or redemption - for the simple reason that matter is not subject to spiritual transformation - only psyches, spirits, souls, persons are so subject. This is why I see God as a transcendent category whose "action" or "work" or "activity" is operative nonmaterially in the soul - and the soul, not the material universe, is where God is to be discovered.

we're still left with the question -- who created the physical universe and to what purpose?

This may be a question that never gets answered, but my thoughts =

1. There is a First Cause, but it is not a personalized intellect. Some great cosmic Intelligence but not a humanlike Person.

2. First Cause is a personalized intellect, but Its thoughts and actions are radically opposed to human ideas of meaning and happiness (i.e., the meaningless suffering of sentient beings in God's "good" creation). Perhaps It cares only for order, but not for us.

3. First Cause is a biological creature or an evolved kind of alien being, some kind of interdimensional hacker (per the relatively new Simulation Theory that the cosmos is an illusion, a virtual simulation, a kind of Truman Show).

4. First Cause is simply non-sentient, eternal fields of quantum potential whose nature it is to spawn universes according to "given", inherent rules.

5. First Cause is a Creator deity like Yahweh in Genesis, and other old creator gods, who takes an interest in "His" creation and "His" creatures, to the point of manipulating matter in order to reward or punish them.

For me, the trouble with 5. is that it makes all of sentient beings' sufferings the direct or indirect consequence of a personal, humanlike creator - a product of God's will - which makes the creator god look absolutely criminal, and therefore really bad news for created beings.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

You've said a great deal here. Thanks much. Let me comment, however, on your last paragraph re "the trouble with 5":

"... is that it makes all of sentient beings' sufferings the direct or indirect consequence of a personal, humanlike creator ..." (created in His image) -- "... a product of God's will -- ..."

I might say, rather, that the "consequence" of His will is a perfectly logical expectation of His being God. He has provided us, His creation, with free will to respond to those consequences. I would suggest that His "appearance" to us ("criminal") is of no consequence. What's the old expression -- "appearances can be deceiving"? I.e., "I am that I am", not "I am what you think I am."

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Biblically speaking, "He" is only known to us through his supposed activities in the world - first by creating it, then by maintaining it via natural processes as well as interruptions of those processes by miraculous intervention, by inspiring scriptures, sending prophets and "Sons" to earth to do His will, etc. That is, He is only known through his "appearances", i.e., how He makes Himself known on to us on the earthly plane.

The Hebrew Bible clearly lays evil as well as good at God's (Yahweh's) door, as the Hebrew Bible was written before the Second Temple period (Jesus' day), whose theology permitted Satan to take the blame for the world's ills. Prior to that, God monistically was the Source of all good and all evil - there was as yet no dualistic Satan to share the blame (there was the Serpent in Eden, but that creature was never identified as Satan in the Hebrew Bible).

Clearly, if we take as real some kind of Yahwistic Creator, we have a record of His own egregious misbehavior in His own Bible and other ancient texts - horrific acts, from the pillage and occupation of Canaan, to Yahweh's outright murder of King David's infant son.

Just as clearly, if we take as real any Nature-based (non-scriptural) creator-deity, we have a record of Its indifference or outright hostility in the myriad examples of suffering in the world - a suffering which precedes human suffering by millions of years, if we take evolution seriously. Animal suffering counts, too.

So there is nothing in "Nature" that points to a creator at at all (my view) - but if Nature IS the product of a Creator, then that Creator has many crimes to answer for. Of course, we see the Creator's will - His appearance-to-us - in Nature; and Nature is replete with meaningless torment, individual death, and the death of species. I therefore would say, "If this so-called Creator wants us to see Him differently, then He needs to present Himself - to appear to us - differently".

I do believe with many theists, of course, that the Godhead - the "God beyond God" - is ineffable and beyond human thought. But we are not talking about the Godhead here. We are talking about a, or the, Creator - a being deeply involved in creating, maintaining, destroying material processes and beings, from microbes to giant star systems. It is this (purported) Creator whose appearance shines forth, no matter how obscurely, as life's tormenter and killer. By His appearance do we know Him, because by nature He is invisible to us. Appearance is what we are stuck with. We as creatures (so-called) have no other means of grasping the invisible creator (so-called), save through His appearance-to-us via His "creative works". And by this appearance, He is indifferent or hostile to sentient beings, and cuts no more slack for them, and shows for them no more loving attention, than He does for non-sentient things like rocks or planetary systems.

So for me it's easier and closer to truth to claim that there is no Creator at all, than to claim that a Creator exists, but - to all appearances - is an evil or indifferent being.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Thanks for a thoughtful response ... but I have two points worth your consideration:

First -- We are speaking at cross-purposes when we each use the word "appearances" (root - "appear"). You are using it as a noun ("a thing seen, a phenomenon") and I am using it as a verb ("to seem; as to appear to be what one is not").

Second -- You say: "If this so-called Creator wants us to see Him differently then He needs to present Himself -- to appear to us -- differently." In my view, He does so in the sacrifice of His Son on Calvary. "... and shows for them no more loving attention, than he does for non-sentient things like rocks ...". Seems such love as demonstrated by that above is greater than any appearances I've seen manifested upon rocks, etc. "... that a Creator exists, but to all appearances -- is an evil or indifferent being." Certainly, not "all" -- again, the aforementioned sacrifice (and, there are others).

One final thought -- If God is, as Bishop Anselm defines Him -- (paraphrasing here) a thing greater than anything which can be imagined, it would seem that our interpretation of what is and what is not "evil", "indifferent", "hostile", "life's tormentor", "killer", etc. may be in error in terms of our free-will interpretation of an appearance. To wit, can a man judge God? Given the largely accepted Anselm definition, I would say not.

Interesting conversation. Thanks, again.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

You're welcome - it is nice talking to you, too.

To wit, can a man judge God? Given the largely accepted Anselm definition, I would say not.

With Job and all suffering beings, my answer is Yes. It's simply our job (Job?) as creatures to do so - that is, it's our job IF we are creatures, which I deny since I deny the existence of a Creator and I deny that the Godhead, "the real God" is a Creator.

But if a Creator wants to be known by his works, and repeatedly tells us so in "his" books and prophets, then it's his job failure, not ours. We do our job - trying to understand the creator by his works (his appearances-to-us, to clarify you "cross-purposes" question). But even with our best efforts, we still find the Creator lacking, even after his (best??) efforts to convince us otherwise. And it is not simply a matter of Divinity being inherently occluded to our meaty minds. Biblically, it's a matter of judging God's purported behavior by clear-sighted observation of his immoral biblical acts - e.g., his outright murder of King David's infant son in the Hebrew Bible, and his smiting of Ananias and Sapphira in the Greek Testament. "By [his] fruits will you know [him]" - there is no other way for the Abrahamic biblicist to know God - except via private revelation or prophetic insight, which however are not relevant to the "knowing God by his appearances in Nature" search. An outstanding Christian judgment of Yahweh, and a perennial classic, is to be found in:

http://www.amazon.com/Answer-Job-Collected-Works-Extracts/dp/0691150478/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460500338&sr=1-1&keywords=answer+to+job

So not only must we judge the Creator and all those gods who advertise themselves as Creators - we are also bound to seek the true God, and on that road, we find many, many alternatives to the incoherent, vengeful Yahweh - and not all of them are Creators.

As we search among the gods, observing them, judging them - among the various God-definitions, we encounter ineffable beings of pure love - not the conditional/covenantal love of the Middle Eastern gods, of which Yahweh is one - but rather beings of pure compassion, infinite wisdom, and unimpeded "Light". If our conscience prefers one or the other of these beings, while understandably rejecting a covenanting but infanticidal deity ... well, then, we'll likely decide in the favor of one of these "Other" kinds of God. And the good news is that among these Others are God-definitions that ignore or even eschew the Creator-God idea. "For God to be real, He must be a Creator" is a maxim that simply does not occur in these spiritualities, because it's like saying, "The moon is made of green cheese, or it doesn't exist". That is, a deity can be invisible, ineffable, mysterious, beyond thought...and still not be a Creator, much less an inconsistent, untrustworthy Yahweh-type Creator.

"... and shows for them no more loving attention, than he does for non-sentient things like rocks ...". Seems such love as demonstrated by that above is greater than any appearances I've seen manifested upon rocks, etc.

Yes, certainly - and I had not realized that you have been speaking as a Christian - that kind of love would be an example of "special divine love for humnanity". But I am not a Christian and do not accept the idea of an atoning death on the cross.

Also, I am writing from the position of what the "creation" purportedly says about the "Creator", and of course things like an Edenic "Fall", an atoning death or a resurrection are not part of "creation" defined as "Nature".

In Nature, living beings, from microbes, from bugs to mammals to human beings receive no more attention than do rocks or galaxies - they are all subject to the mindless cycles of force in which Nature consists - no thing, no animal, no human being, is given a break. Animals and humans suffer and die with no exception granted to them. If we were a special case, and "all life is sacred", we would not suffer and die. But we DO suffer and die with no exemptions whatsoever, i.e., judging from the "Creator's" own "creative" action, life is clearly not sacred.

This is why my God-definition and God-selection retains the idea of a truly "Other" Godhead, a God beyond human egoic understanding, a being of infinite wisdom, Light and compassion...while scrapping all ideas of a creator-deity who does or does not intervene in matter according to an inscrutable will.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

My being a Christian certainly makes our prerogatives quite different in a discussion like this. I respect your point of view, however.

To be clear on a not-necessarily-Christian-only precept: Where I think questioning God is acceptable to God (He even encourages same), so is incorrectly interpreting the meaning of His injunctions. I believe that to judge God is not in His eyes acceptable. there is a difference. I.e., to suggest one can render a pejorative judgment about God (He is cruel or indifferent) is to elevate one's own standard as being superior to God's, inevitably making one a god one's self or, indeed, a greater God than the One who has vouchsafed our very existence -- including both our need for and our cognitive ability to engage in conversations such as this one.

Thanks and Best

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Thanks and Best

Same to you - I've enjoyed it. Would have got back sooner, but we just had about a 5-hour power outage.

Next time -

:)

reply

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 9 years ago

I think the first thing to ask when asking this question is this: What is God's point? What, precisely, is He trying to accomplish? That's the first concept to understand when dealing with, as C.S. Lewis put it, the Problem of Pain.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Yes, that's a question that plagues all Creator-based systems. Even with the best intentions in the world (in heaven, I suppose), what's with all this waste and suffering? Humans may not yet be able to create "the best of all possible worlds", but we can certainly imagine a much better kind of world, say, one where children don't get raped, the elderly don't get Alzheimer's, and ... an indefinetly long list of other flaws and ills.

For me, God is real, but God is not a creator. So the problems of pain and evil - because they are features of a supposedly "created" world - don't bother me on a theological level because I do not believe that a deity is involved in these evils, which seem to be seamlessly embedded in the "Creator's" world, and by implication, in "His" plans. Of course I am troubled by this problem on the human level, as most of us are. It's just that I do not believe that there is a "Plan" or a God that are creatively and causally involved in the problem.

reply

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 9 years ago

The problem with your point about God not being a "creator" is that, like many human philosophies espoused in the American culture today, it is designed to absolve humans of all accountability toward that Creator.

He is all He says He is, or else He isn't. One must either completely accept Him, or else not. There is no third choice.

People don't like the idea that someone else is in charge, and in my experience will defend themselves to the death rather than consider that they are, in fact, accountable to a superior being. As Lewis put it, "Oh ye sons of Adam, how cleverly you defend yourselves against all that would do you good!"

I know, not believe, but know that God is omnipotent and omniscient. He lives, and he presides over His creations. Back to my original post, what is His point? Simply put, He is trying to teach us to be exactly as perfect, as omnipotent, as omniscient as He is. See Matthew 5:48.

But even that kind of power is more or less a by-product of His true design. The very core of what He would train us to have is Joy. Perfect, eternal, and complete Joy. Every other concept revealed by Him feeds that one goal, including eternal power.

I don't find myself "plagued" by the problem of pain, even though I must experience it, and sure don't like it. He allows the pain to happen because He knows that we are strong enough to one day overcome it, even if we die in the process. There is a lot more strength in you than you might be willing to believe at first. You are His offspring, after all.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

The problem with your point about God not being a "creator" is that, like many human philosophies espoused in the American culture today, it is designed to absolve humans of all accountability toward that Creator

No, it is not so "designed". It's a philosophy, a conclusion, an observation, and for me, a truth. Some people may USE it as a design, but those people would be liars because they would "know" that God is a creator, but then deny it in order to "misbehave". I'm not one of them.

He is all He says He is, or else He isn't. One must either completely accept Him, or else not. There is no third choice.

Oh, there are all kinds of choices. First, you make the egregiously incoherent assumption that "He" (the creator) has to be the biblical Yahweh. Sorry, but that's a huge gaffe. Yahweh is a savage deity in many of his aspects, from the rape of Canaan to his outright murder of King David's infant son. If anyone "completely accepts" this monster, then that person has a few moral and theological loose marbles. Moreover, Yahweh is not the ONLY God - he's only one of many so-called creators, who themselves are only a subset of Deity and Deities generally. One can only wonder in bafflement why anyone would select Yahweh as creator and personal God. But anyway, the choices among deities, unlike your claim states, are many.

People don't like the idea that someone else is in charge

0. A lot of people just love the idea of having someone in charge - whether it's a political leader or a would-be "Creator", thus practicing the very rejection of "accountability" you condemn. You know, "If a great human or superhuman Designer and Leader is in charge, let them take care of things".

1. BUT: Clearly and obviously there is no one in charge. The daily behavior of the world is proof-positive of this.

2. If there's someone in charge, that "person" is by turns indifferent, cruel, ignorant, hostile, stupid, and graceless. Certainly not "God" by your own sugar-coated definition.

3. This being the case, it is much easier to deny a creator, rather than to affirm that some kind of horrifically-empowered Daffy Duck is at the helm.

I know, not believe, but know that God is omnipotent and omniscient. He lives, and he presides over His creations.

Try telling "the creator's" victims about his omniscience and omnipotence. And - you made a testable claim. Let's put it to the test: prove that this "Presider" over creation really exists and really "presides". Otherwise your claimed "knowledge" of God's supposed sovereignty is just more Creatorist hot air.

You are His offspring, after all.

No one, no thing, is a creator's offsrping because there is probably no creator, and if there IS a creator, more than likely it's not a deity, but some advanced non-human machine, biocomputer or "alien" being(s). God does not need to be a creator in order to be real. That's like saying that the moon has to be made of green cheese or it doesn't exist. For me, the "real" God is That Which is, and has been, explicated by divine union mystics since time began, and this Transcendent Absolute by no means HAS to be a creator-deity.

reply

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 9 years ago

Like I said in paragraph three...it ain't just a river in Egypt.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Like I said in paragraph three...it ain't just a river in Egypt.

That's your "response"? Because you made no refutation of my post whatsoever, it is clear that you're just sailing your own felucca.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felucca

You are pathetic!

:)

reply

[–] blackhawkswincup2010 9 years ago

and your "response" proves my entire point. You will do anything, ANYTHING, to escape being confronted with the reality of God, including childish name-calling.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

I am already immersed in God - everyone is whether or not they realize it - and so I need no theological lectures from a person who is stubbornly unaware of this basic fact.

Why don't you come back after you've matured a little, gotten yourself a religious education, and can offer substantial critiques of my statements.

Until then, go on enjoying your co-dependent, abusive relationship with Israel's deity. Just don't try to foist it on others.

reply

[–] angelosdaughter (158) 6 years ago

As for to whom we are responsible, it is to our fellow humans.
I remember that in Catholic school, we were taught to transform our sympathy for the sufferings of Jesus into compassion for the sufferings of our fellow human beings, and to act on that compassion.
It seems that many human beings need to have someone higher up than each other to account to for their actions or the lack thereof

reply

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

God monistically was the Source of all good and all evil

No, He certainly was not. God is good, not evil, and therefore He would never commit evil.

Satan has always been the originator of evil. That is why he is recorded right there in Genesis as bringing evil into the world, after receiving Eve's permission.

And he is also recorded elsewhere as having originated evil in Heaven before that, when his name was Lucifer, before he debased himself. Actually, his anger over getting kicked out of Heaven is what motivated him to tempt Eve to sin and thus largely destroy the humans' world.

there was the Serpent in Eden, but that creature was never identified as Satan in the Hebrew Bible

That's like saying "the sky was never identified as blue in the Hebrew Bible." It's such obvious common knowledge that it goes without saying. All readers at the time when it was written knew that it was Satan. And anyway, "the Hebrew Bible" is not the entirety of God's Word. The entirety of God's Word makes abundantly clear that it was Satan.

You are merely defending Satan and illegitimately trying to pawn Satan's evil off onto God because you love Satan.

But you are egregiously misrepresenting the content of the Bible in order to suit your Satan-loving/Satan-defending agenda.

reply

[–] jmichael3387 8 years ago

To answer the original question:

Earth isn't Heaven. Earth isn't for eternity. Our time on Earth is less than a snap of the fingers compared to eternity. The purpose of our time on Earth is to seek God and make it into Heaven. If our time on Earth is not perfect, if we experience some suffering....so be it. It's the least we can do for an eternity in Heaven, right?

reply

[–] loudisthelord 8 years ago

Inspire doesn't mean what people thinks it means. Inspired means inaccurate in some way, which the Bible is. There are 6 different versions of the resurrection on the Messiah, all of them are different and can not all be put together accurately. The only thing they agree on is he died, was buried, and God raised him back up. The rest is contradictory in between.

Also there is no trinity that doctrine is false

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2R0eYhLwJI The Omega Men

reply

[–] MannLaw 9 years ago

God's greatest gift to people: the gift of free choice. Without pain, cruelty and suffering there can be no free choice. I don't like this answer but it is the best I could come up with.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

I don't like the answer, either, but admire your honesty in stating it.

Because I don't believe that God is a creator, "the problem of evil" for me does not lie with God or with some Satan-figure. I take a more Buddhistic or even a Christian Gnostic view that the world/cosmos is the inferior, "Samsaric" realm of suffering, greed, egomania, psychosis, cheating, faithlessness, blindness, hunger, thirst, sickness, injury and death...in contrast to the sacred "Other Realms" like Buddhism's Nirvana or Pure Lands, and in contrast to Christian Gnosticism's true heavenly realm, "the Pleroma", in which dwells the true God Beyond God, who is, unlike the Demiurge Yahweh, not a creator at all.

Whether or not my view of God as an Other,Transcendent, non-Creator is correct, at least it gets me and my God-definition off the hook of being responsible for "Creation's" worst aspects...

:)

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

If, as you state, it is "easier to define God in "person" terms ("indifferent", "cruel", "hostile", "stupid", etc.) than it is to look for answers more thoughtfully, I might agree. I'm not so sure, however, that easy definitions or ease of understanding are the best ways to discover "the truth" in reflection or in fact regarding such matters as God's identity or purpose. In short, when you suggest an act is cruel, it's because you assume the act must be cruel to God. To wit, God shouldn't have allowed it, or there is no God in charge. Intellectually, then, aren't you reversing roles: a kind of "Me God -- you Jane" thing -- "Or, get out of the jungle!"?

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

I used "easy" as connoting "effortlessly flowing" from the conclusion that there is either no creator - whether or not that being is a deity - or a creator or creators exist, but are clearly not involved in maintining the safety, the health and the happiness of "creatures".

And human beings have no other way to judge a creator except by their experience and understanding of the creation. "Nature" (the "creation" in such systems) is not indicative of any all-powerful, compassionate creative-and-guiding Hand. Simple. And..."easy".

when you suggest an act is cruel, it's because you assume the act must be cruel to God

If it isn't cruel to a Creator, then the Creator is a hideously flawed entity. Humans can only judge and conclude from our own minds, hearts, and experiences. We have no Archimedean Point by which to stand outside ourselves and see our sufferings in the light of some external "authority", be it the cosmos or some deity. Our duty as adults is to judge for ourselves for the simple reason that the so-called "Creator" has left us utterly alone to make such decisions.

And this is compounded to the nth degree when people deliberately select a truly monstrous "Creator" such as ancient Israel's Yahweh - a deity whose own sacred texts list his crimes with nauseating explictness, from his ordering the rape of Canaan to his outright murder of King David's infant son. But in a way Yahweh's behavior certainly fits the model of a "Creator" who not only condones natural suffering, but himself causes suffering, loss, and bereavement to human beings for his own savage, vain "reasons".

God shouldn't have allowed it, or there is no God in charge

Pretty close, but I would put it differently -

First: I deny that God is a-or-the Creator, and therefore from the get-go, for me it is not a question of a god-as-creator allowing or disallowing things that happen in the cosmos and/or on earth.

Second: your phrasing of my position only expresses half of the equation, i.e., "since randomly evil things happen in the world, then there is no Creator in charge."

The missing part can be stated, "since randomly evil things happen in the world, then, if a Creator exists, then that entity is by turns indifferent, hostile, incompetent, cruel, profoundly uncaring and uncompassionate - etc."

This second component of my belief was actually a Christian theology that flourished in the early centuries of Christianity and still exists, and I know that you are aware of it - Christian Gnosticism, many important schools of which affirmed that "the Creator" is really "the Demiurge", a false, ego-intoxicated morally blind being, frequently identified with "the Creator" Yahweh.

This is why my claim is twofold: 1) There is no Creator; 2) If there is a Creator, "It" is a mere demiurge ontologically and morally opposed to the true, "alien" (alien to the Demiurge's flawed world) transcendent non-creating God.

The Demiurge:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/gnostic_files/demiurge.htm

The True God:

The Father of Light is not merely god or a god, or similar to a god. It is incorrect to think of him so: he is The Invisible Spirit. Since there is none more powerful, no one is able to give him orders. He does not live in inferior beings; rather, everything exists in him. He even brought himself into being, and he lives forever because he does not require sustenance. Since he does not lack for anything, he needs nothing for completion. He is a completely perfect being in light.

His ability is unlimited, since there is no one more powerful to set limits. He is not able to be closely examined as a specimen, for no one lived before him to examine him. For the same reason, he cannot be measured. He is invisible since no one has seen him. He is eternal for he had no beginning.

He is indescribable since no one is able to comprehend him to speak of him. He cannot be named since there was no one with the authority to name him. He is blinding light - pure, holy, immaculate.

Since all but him are corrupt, and he is incorruptible, no one is able to describe his blessedness, divinity, or perfection.

He is even superior to such eloquent words in their fullness of meaning!

He is not corporal or incorporeal. He is neither large nor small. One cannot say, "Of what quantity is he, or what quality?" No one can know him. He is more than superior - he is beyond the confines of time and reality since he created these and did not receive them from another. He does not look to anyone for anything out of need. All look expectantly to him in his light.

His perfection is majestic. He is pure, limitless mind. He is time-giving time, life-giving life, blessings-giving blessed, knowledge-giving knowledge, goodness-giving goodness, mercy- and redemption-giving mercy, grace-giving grace - not because these are his possession; rather, they are the benefits of his gift of immeasurable and incomprehensible light.

How can I describe him so that you can understand? His existence is indestructible; his repose is in the confident knowledge of being before all. He is the head of all creation, and he imparts strength through his goodness. We are unable to describe him accurately or understand him; all, that is, but the one who came forth from the Father.

This one who came forth is able to describe him because he looks at the Father through the very light that surrounds him. This light is also called the "spring water of life." So he is the mediator who imparts this light to all creations in every way, for he is able to gaze upon the Father's image in the spring water of the spirit. He is able to accomplish his desires through this water-light that surrounds him. Now you know, for I have told only you.

http://jacksonsnyder.com/sss/pages/Apocryphon%20of%20John.htm

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

"If it isn't cruel to a Creator then the Creator is a hideously flawed entity."

You are judging God by your own standards ("Me God, you Jane"). Eg., a man walking down the street falls head-long into an open manhole disfiguring himself for life -- and God permits this. "Indifference" and "cruelty" to both you and me. But ... the man is on his way to a pre-school to shoot as many children as he can. God (an entity greater than anything which can be imagined) may view cruelty and His own involvement (or lack thereof) in this act differently than we... Who, by definition, is likely closer to "the truth"? I would opt for the latter. Especially, because I believe that there is more than our incomplete "experience and understanding of the creation" (I guess you mean the physical creation) by which we may reflect on the question. There are, also, the less tangible elements of both "experience and understanding" such as intellect, spirit, and faith (our own and of others) available to our mulling.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

You are judging God by your own standards

Yes, of course. There are no other standards, no Archimedean Point, by which - from which - to judge, as I said before.

I. You yourself - and all Abrahamic people - judge Divinity for yourself simply by selecting-out Yahweh to be your Creator. You have judged - and judged negatively, to the point of rejecting them - all other "Creators" and deities. You've done your own judging God-wise, yet you have a problem with me exercizing the same right.

II.

If the putative Creator wants us to judge him or even simply perceive him differently than we do, he is free to 1) inform us of our incorrect views, and/or 2) change the game plan, the world, the cosmos, etc.

And by definition and necessity, all of this new "corrective" data must issue from the putative Creator, since we below have not been given a single clue. (And please remember that I am not talking about God here, I'm talking about a, or the, "Creator").

Point 2) above has never, and likely will never, happen.

Point 1) above is claimed to have happened, especially by biblicists specifically, and generally by Abrahamists, Hindus, and some native cultures. But there's the rub. There are all these claimed "Creators" clamoring for adherents, and their messages don't add up internally, and they especially do not add up in comparison amongst themselves. Who, then, to believe? As I've said, Yahweh is just as bad a choice for Creator and God as any other Moloch - and as I've also said, his own sacred texts explicitly list his savage acts. So if the choice is between a monstrous Yahwistic "Creator" and a much more creature-friendly "Creator", then the moral choice is obvious: choose the better "Creator" over the incendiary, volatile, vengeful, fickle and violent Yahweh. Like I've said before: "Easy".

the man is on his way to a pre-school to shoot as many children as he can

So the school got lucky because of a random accident. Earlier in the day, a little girl on her way to that school was crushed to death by a tree branch that had been cracked by the previous night's storm.

Both cases are understandable if there is no "Creator" overseeing his "Creation".

But with the assumption that a "Creator" is indeed in charge - an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-compassionate Parent figure - both cases become radically incoherent, and they simply, easily, demonstrate the emptiness of "Creatorism's" claims.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

I think it comes down to:

1) "Incoherence" to some is "prerogative" to others.

And 2) can a fallible creation make the argument that it can define and pass judgements (as distinguished from 'questioning') on its infallible creator? If the answer is "yes", then there must be two utterly disconnected sources in the beginning (your view?) which is harder to explain, it seems to me, than a single omniscient source who created 'the fallible' with a coherent purpose for having done so.

Whew!

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

can a fallible creation make the argument that it can define and pass judgements (as distinguished from 'questioning') on its infallible creator?

Sure, a Creation/creatures can judge its Creator, just as children can judge - and condemn - bad parents. Just because the parents are older, more powerful than, and supposedly know more than the offspring, does not mean that their parenting is wise, compassionate, and sound.

But the idea that the Creator is infallible is already a presupposition based on another presupposition, namely, that a Creator exists in the first place. And as I have pointed out, the biblical Creator is without doubt fallible, makes mistakes, makes moral errors (nothing can justify Yahweh's direction to rape Canann or his decision to murder King David's infant son), occasionally "repents" of his depredations, he's supposedly omniscient but constantly fails to consult his omniscience - etc.

However, that's the biblical Creator. The philosophical question of Creator/Creators in general still remains, i.e., "Is there such a being as a Creator (I see zero evidence for this idea), and is this Creator worthy of the love and worship of Its creatures?"

Therefore, people who believe that a Creator exists need to:

1. Provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the mindless and uncaring cycles of force that constitute the physical world are actually a "Mindful", deliberate Creation or Design of a superhuman, nonmaterial Creating Intellect.

2. Then - if they love, admire, value and/or worship said Creator - they need to explain why the universe's mindless cycles of force are mindless, and why they so egregiously injure, sicken, age, terrify, depress, and annihilate the "creatures" who are caught in their crushingly hostile web.

3. Or, like the Gnostic Christians, they can take the stance that the Creator is a blind, evil Demiurge, while the True God reigns supreme in the transcendent Pleroma, and fly in spirit to the True God, leaving the world and its cruel, ignorant Creator far behind.

there must be two utterly disconnected sources in the beginning (your view?)

Sorry, I don't understand the question as phrased, i.e., I do not understand why you think that I believe in "sources" - and that they are, or must be, "disconnected". Since I do not believe in a Creator(s) - I don't believe in a sentient "Source" or "Sources" - and I do not believe in any case that God is a Creator, I don't know what kind of sources you have in mind.

There is no "connection" between God and the origins (if any) of the physical universe because God is not a Creator.

If a Creator exists, It's probably no kind of a god, at least in the normative connotation of the word. And if a Creator does happen to exist - then, yes, the universe would have a single source in that Creator, with no "disconnect" source-wise. That is, if a Creator created the cosmos, then presumably there's a straight line from Creator-to-Creation with no occurence of double sources or disconnects. So could you please clarify what you mean by two disconnected sources...? The only "two source" theory I can think of is, say, a nonmaterial Creator (spiritual source) intiated the Big Bang (physical source), but I'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

What I seem to have trouble conveying is my response to:

"... just as children can judge -- and condemn -- bad parents."

By whose definition of "bad" are the children judging and condemning? Their own? And, if each child is left to his own definition, then there is no definitive or absolute definition. Ie., no morality. Thus, the parent by the same token, cannot be adjudicated as "bad" -- or "cruel", or "hostile", etc. except anecdotally. In short, where does the morality of which you speak come from? Do the kids simply take a vote -- he's bad, good, or something in between?

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

The morality/moral judgment is directly derived from - i.e., concluded by - the child - from parental behavior ... just as bruising, scabbing, and bleeding are directly derived from wounding. Most children eventually figure out when they are being treated unfairly, ignored, put into unnecessary danger, coerced, mocked, and physically and emotionally abused. This sense doesn't come from outside - it's innate. Even dogs, dolphins and bonobo chimps have a strong sense of fairness-and-indignation, and a sensitivity to poor treatment - even more so human kids. To repeat, this abuse-response is innate, although it can be refracted through the lens of whatever culture/society - animal or human - is being examined.

I'm still not clear on two issues -

1. Are we talking about "a" Creator, or the biblical Creator - it makes a difference, because in the first case, derivations are made from the behavior of "God's Creation" or "Nature", while in the second case, derivations are made from the purported behavior and the "Word" of the Creator-Yahweh's supposed self-revelations in scripture.

2. I'm still not understanding your earlier question about "two sources" and a "disconnect" involving them.

By whose definition of "bad" are the children judging and condemning? Their own?

Sure - it's innate, although it can be refracted and/or intensified by experiencing external cultural sources, e.g., a sad movie about a pet who dies of ill treatment can bring tears to a child's eyes because their innate empathy dictates that this is an appropriate response - even though the movie or TV show is external to the kids. The principle here is: No empathy - no morality.

if each child is left to his own definition, then there is no definitive or absolute definition. Ie., no morality.

Each child's experience comes prior to any intellectual definition. Years of ill treatment are an experience which, after development of verbal skills, a stronger "I-sense", etc., can become a definition in a child's mind.

the parent by the same token, cannot be adjudicated as "bad" -- or "cruel", or "hostile", etc. except anecdotally

Most child abuse trials rest heavily on anecdotal testimony, but they also rely on police and medical forensics. If you or I saw an adult beating on a three-year-old, we would hopefully act on our innate sense of outrage over the act.

where does the morality of which you speak come from? Do the kids simply take a vote -- he's bad, good, or something in between

Like I said, it's innate, part of our psycho-neurological-spiritual makeup, and I suppose that its most common designation is "the human conscience".

If you want me to say that at least some of this sense comes from God, I can say that it reflects the nature of the true, non-Creator God - as was taught in schools of Christian Gnosticism. It wasn't implanted by a Creator. Rather, it's implicit and inherent in all spirits, human, alien, or true "alien" God.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

I have problems with several things you said, the first of which is "empathy" = "morality". I don't think it does. They are often interconnected but hardly the same thing.

Secondly, "abuse response" is not "innate". Physical "sensitivity" may, indeed, be, but not necessarily the "response" to it (intellectual, verbal, or retributive). Further -- "If you or I saw an adult beating on a three year old child, we would hopefully act on our innate sense of outrage." ... Yes, but the beater would not! (Hitler's response to a Jewish child's dying would be rather different than would Mother Teresa's.) Outrage is not innate, imo.

My use of "two sources" and a "disconnect" refers to the dynamic described by you in various places as the "cruel" "Creator God", the other in your last paragraph: the "non-Creator God" the "implicit and inherent in all spirits, human, alien, or true 'alien' God."

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

I meant that the capacity for empathy causes a moral response. Obviously, empathy or "fellow-feeling" per se isn't morality, but I cannot imagine how morality can arise without empathy. So in saying that empathy = morality, I was just taking a shortcut.

"abuse response" is not "innate". Physical "sensitivity" may, indeed, be, but not necessarily the "response" to it (intellectual, verbal, or retributive).

Then I'm just not getting what you're saying. Typical - even predictable - responses to abuse, including emotional abuse, are fear, pathological introversion, suppressed anger/real anger, overdeveloped fantasy life, helpless rage, feeling as worthless as the abuser makes the victim out to be, cowed acceptance, self-punishing acting-out, co-dependence with the abuser, seeking to please the abuser in order to avoid more abuse, and so on. You asked me where morality comes from, so I'll ask you where these abuse symptoms and behaviors come from - if they're not innate - and if they're not innate, what is "the human conscience"?.

Also I'd like to ask you again what exactly we both mean when we say "Creator" - as I mentioned, there's a difference between a philosophical view of the Creator based on the behavior of Creation or Nature. Otoh, there's the religious view of a particular Creator - e.g., Yahweh or some other creating deity - as "revealed" in sacred traditions and scriptures. Next time we talk about a Creator, we should probably make clear which kind of Being we mean.

My use of "two sources" and a "disconnect" refers to the dynamic described by you in various places as the "cruel" "Creator God", the other in your last paragraph: the "non-Creator God" the "implicit and inherent in all spirits, human, alien, or true 'alien' God."

Oh, okay - thanks for the clarification - yes, in my view a Creator - whether a deity viewed by analyzing Its creation/nature, or a named traditional deity, or even an advanced but non-divine "Something" - is ultimately responsible for the world's ills; whereas the true "alien" God of (say) the Gnostic Christians has no responsibility at all toward a cosmos "He" had no hand in creating. The disconnect as it were lies in the difference between a demiurgic deity and a God beyond all creator gods.

"If you or I saw an adult beating on a three year old child, we would hopefully act on our innate sense of outrage." ... Yes, but the beater would not!

Yes, but wouldn't that be because the beater sadly lacked the moral sense ... whether it is innate or not? Apparently some sociopaths 1) cannot help themselves - and 2) more importantly, feel no obligation to help themselves. The world for them is an arena for predation, with the only remaining moral sense being their own instinct for self-preservation.

Although I am not a materialist, I do acknowledge that there can be strong, deciding genetic and neurological factors operating in sociopaths. These predators, says most science I've read, have not deliberately chosen "Evil" as a life style - on the contrary, they seem to be evil from a very early age - torturing small animals, bullying, etc. Sure, in some cases they themselves were horribly abused - but for them, can't the principle of innate abuse-response be invoked...? But for the others, predation and thrill-killing seems to be determined by factors outside of the conscious will of the psychopath.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

I don't disagree that "sensitivity", which I called it, is innate in human beings, animals, etc. but "responses", your term, are not. Perhaps I should call sensitivity "first reaction" or "the survival instinct". Here is where the "conscience" and "morality" concepts differ from simple sensitivity to the abuse. Eg., a tiger responds to a beating with his teeth. A Christian responds to a beating by turning his cheek. I'm trying not to split hairs here, but I hope you get the idea. Maybe, we can say there are instinctive first responses and deliberative responses after thought. The former is "innate" and, therefore, common, as you suggest; the latter comes from separate (often, very separate) "moral" perspectives (eg., the observer & the child beater).

I think we may be pretty close on this now.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

Yeah, I'd say we're pretty much in agreement on this issue now...

reply

[–] Thats_A_Print 9 years ago

What you are all talking about being "bad" is not our natural instincts as a human, it is literally in our blood. Our ancestors pass on sin through their blood. this is why the Bible called it sin stained blood....

The reason Jesus had to be born of a virgin is because if he was fathered by man he would have sin stained blood and he could not have been pure enough to be a sinnless man to take on the sins of the world in his death to save our souls...

When a woman gets pregnant not one drop of her blood goes to the baby. Only the father passes on his bloodline to the child. SO the Virgin Mary can give birth to a baby without sin in his blood as long as the baby is Fathered by pure God. And with a sinless bloodline the human and soon to be our Messiah would not be prone to sinning like we are. It is our nature to sin because of our sin tainted blood line. The memory of our ancestors sin is carried through to our blood.

Jesus had pure blood from his Father and therefore the only man that could be sacraficed to take on our sin just as the way the offerings of a pure lamb as a sacrafice was used by the Jews to be absolved of their sins. Jesus is meant to take the place of the literal lambs and become "The Lamb of God" as John the Baptist called him.

... End of line.

reply

[–] Thats_A_Print 9 years ago

Simple answer

God gave man free will to do as he choses with his life. God does not intervene unless asked him appropriately otherwise we are just God's puppets and in that we would not have free will. So with free will man can choose to do good or bad which is why God is never responsible for the bad things that happen to good people.

God gave us a body and if we misuse it or do not take care of it, we can get ill and sick. We can pray and ask God for a healing but if we continue with the habits that created the disease then the disease we were healed from will return.

Bad things happen to good people because other bad people choose to harm others, it is not God that does these bad things. God gave everyone free will when a person choses to go bad in his life God does not have power to stop bad people from using their free will to do bad things to others. God is no respector of persons which means he treats everyone the same. If we use the law of the universe to create we can use it for good or bad. Just because someone is a good person does not mean they gain favor with God or Jesus. Again we must authorize God to intervene in our lives and until we do God will not help us. Jesus will not help us unless we ask him into our lives. In the Lords Prayer when we say "Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done" that is when we surrender our free will to the will of God. God is then in charge of our lives. If we don't invite God in our lives then we are on our own. Even when we give God permission to intervene,bad things can still happen to us by others who are using their free will to harm us but with that God will make everything work together for our good. He will make the crooked path straight again in time.He will bring us out of our troubled areas but we must also participate in our personal healing with the help of God.

In Ben-Hur the sick mother and sister helped themselves by leaving the leper colony and going to see Jesus to ask for his help. They reached out to him and showed their Faith in him and their prayer was answered eventually...

GOd always says YES to our prayers " Whatsoever you ask the Father in My name, he shall give it you" -Jesus Yet our prayers are not always answered instantly. There is a Divine Order. Delays are not denials. God is always on time not a minute too early or a minute too late. When our prayer is finally answered, we will understand that it is perfect timing for us but not until it happens can we see the reasons for God's delay. We become grateful for the delay once it has arrived.

... End of line.

reply

[–] davy12349 8 years ago

I see it as God knows all things, the good & evil each man has done or will from the beginning of time.

God allows Man to choice to do good or evil acts in this life,as kind of a record.. Hilter for example, If God said to Hilter " Yr actions would have lead to the death of millions, had I not used my power to stop you " Hilter would have said " no not me, I would never "

Also God doesn't view death as tragic event, but more of a comehoming. Even a life time of suffering is

reply

[–] dtkaisei 8 years ago

I think the most common anwser to that is free will. Since we believe God gave us free will so we can love out of our own decision, he can't intervene. If he were to intervene, we wouldn't have free will, since we cannot do as we please. Now that only accounts for sufferings caused by humans (which is a lot btw). With disease, that's another story. Well I don't really know an anwser to that, I haven't thought about it enough. Anyway, have a nice day.

reply

[–] Fearnotthezone 8 years ago

If I were to be very literal about the teachings of bible and why things are not going well for us, just remember that our current economy is based on a system of USURY that god disapproves of. So if we were two people who literally believed in the bible, we would both have to agree that we are currently having this discussion in hell and what is happening to our world is perfectly normal since god has abandoned us. Otherwise we would have to agree that what is sold to us (organised religion) is all a lie!!!
Or does the idea of: "In God We Trust" printed in money that as soon as it is printed it has interest charges added to it, flies above people's heads nowadays?
I am trying to say that if there is a god and we do not know him or her, is probably because our master is the devil!

reply

[–] cfwente 8 years ago

My recommendation, for what it is worth, is that a deal more understanding of economics, the American Republic, and Christian theology may go a long way to answering your questions (implied) and conclusions (explicitly cynical). Keep working at it -- and good luck to you.

reply