NationStates Jolt Archive

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering.

i think that reallity disagrees with you

i think that reallity disagrees with you

Read what I wrote please. I didn't say suffering doesn't exist. I gave an explanation as to what I believe God has put in place to deal with suffering.

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine:

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the * with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the * is telling them (and if the * forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the * tells us, the *gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.


It's not a Christian view only, it's a Muslim view, also.

As a matter of fact, it's all the Abrahamic religions' point of view.

Aside from the *'s. I would replace them with the Holy Books (Bible, Qur'an, Psalms, etc.).

so if i listen to the holy ghost all my suffering will end?

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

That's why Donald Rumsfeld resigned.

i think that reallity disagrees with you

I think you need to go to church once.Just once.See what it's like.See the atmosphere,and the way people open up with God,it's really quite amazing.

so if i listen to the holy ghost all my suffering will end?

No.

Really, God (or Allah in my view) won't fix things for whatever reason. But, if you listen to his Holy Words (Bible, etc.), then you'll find happiness in suffering.

Just MY opinion on the subject.

so if i listen to the holy ghost all my suffering will end?

And no.You need to believe God exists and put your faith in him.You can't just go "Erm.Hey God.I believe in you,honest.Can I have the gift of the Holy Ghost now?"
That would be a bit too easy/silly.

It's not a Christian view only, it's a Muslim view, also.

As a matter of fact, it's all the Abrahamic religions' point of view.

Aside from the *'s. I would replace them with the Holy Books (Bible, Qur'an, Psalms, etc.).

Is it? Wow, didn't know that. Hang on a sec though, how can it be when many religions believe that God is NOT made up of three 'persons' (not to beconfused with being 3 Gods, as Christians only believe in ONE God, but made up of 3 'persons') yet many Christians do ?

so if i listen to the holy ghost all my suffering will end?

Perhaps not. But perhaps if other people listened to the Holy Spirit and tried to help you, it would. There's also the fact that many people no longer trust God and have relied on medicine for so long, it has made their self-healing powers (which I niether confirming nor denying the existence of) redundant.

When I was little I had a Mormon friend. She claimed the Holy Ghost would help you in times of trouble, so for a while I thought the Holy Ghost was my invisible friend to steal cookies for me and stuff...

We all believe what we want to make ourselves feel better in moments of pain and suffering. *shrugs*

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

See what I wrote though? He didn't. We did. He left measures in place, and we've just ignored them, in my opinion.

I think you need to go to church once.Just once.See what it's like.See the atmosphere,and the way people open up with God,it's really quite amazing.

i've been there, more than once, and actually i like churches, they are beautifull pieces of architecture, and, indeed, an amazing atmosphere (especially when you're alone) but that doesn't make me believe in God, churches are obviously the work of man (not mentioning how they were funded).
i really wish i could believe in God (or some other entity) but it would only feel like i was delusioning myself. i even kind of envy your faith (and am perfectly ok with it as long as you don't try to force it upon others)

Really, God (or Allah in my view) won't fix things for whatever reason. But, if you listen to his Holy Words (Bible, etc.), then you'll find happiness in suffering.

You'll become a masochist? :eek:

Ok so you develop cancer. What did the holy spirit do to guide you out of that?

i've been there, more than once, and actually i like churches, they are beautifull pieces of architecture, and, indeed, an amazing atmosphere (especially when you're alone) but that doesn't make me believe in God, churches are obviously the work of man (not mentioning how they were funded).
i really wish i could believe in God (or some other entity) but it would only feel like i was delusioning myself. i even kind of envy your faith (and am perfectly ok with it as long as you don't try to force it upon others)

Fair enough,I stand corrected.I try not to force it upon others,as I think everyone's entitled to believe what they want,it's a basic freedom.But I do want people to understand how it felt when I first found God,it was pretty fecking amazing,I never felt so uplifted in my entire life.But,again,it is wrong to force people into a religion,that's not how it should be done anyway.People need to find God themselves.
And I felt like I was being delusional myself.

I think you need to go to church once.Just once.See what it's like.See the atmosphere,and the way people open up with God,it's really quite amazing.
I agree, though I would say 'scary', however amazing still comunicates the gist.

i've been there, more than once, and actually i like churches, they are beautifull pieces of architecture, and, indeed, an amazing atmosphere (especially when you're alone) but that doesn't make me believe in God, churches are obviously the work of man (not mentioning how they were funded).
i really wish i could believe in God (or some other entity) but it would only feel like i was delusioning myself. i even kind of envy your faith (and am perfectly ok with it as long as you don't try to force it upon others)

Why be envious of people who require an imaginary friend to feel good about themselves? Especially when that imaginary friend tells them that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to accept it that they're sinners who have to strive all their lives to measure up to that imaginary friend's standards. Spirituality is just another way of distracting yourself from who you really are, a human being. Flawed, maybe, but you should be capable of validating yourself without help from Above.

Ok so you develop cancer. What did the holy spirit do to guide you out of that?

Gave us the ability to heal ourselves but we becamse so reliant on drugs it became redenundant... in my opinion.

Gave us the ability to heal ourselves but we becamse so reliant on drugs it became redenundant... in my opinion.

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not

I agree, though I would say 'scary', however amazing still comunicates the gist.

Was it a Catholic church (a cathedral)? I've not visited many, but I've found them to be less friendly than Anglican churches.

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

I'm cool with this so far.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

An interesting take on it. I find it appealing to some degree, though I think it's not sufficiently justified at this point.

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

Why do you think that robots have no ability to think, and that they have any less free will than we do?

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

And here I disagree very much. I do not think that a benevolent deity such as the God I believe in ever gives up on us.

Fair enough,I stand corrected.I try not to force it upon others,as I think everyone's entitled to believe what they want,it's a basic freedom.But I do want people to understand how it felt when I first found God,it was pretty fecking amazing,I never felt so uplifted in my entire life.But,again,it is wrong to force people into a religion,that's not how it should be done anyway.People need to find God themselves.
And I felt like I was being delusional myself.

very good that you have found something to give your life meaning and that brings you happiness. (and that you don't try to force it upon others)
i hope that one day i'll find the same. although i know it won't be god. (and i'm not that desperatly searching as it sounds :) )

I'm not sure if you're kidding or not

I'm suggesting it as a possibility. After all, there are some pretty amazing stories related to spiritual stuff like meditation (astral projection etc), so why not the ability to heal one's self? As I said, I am neither confirming or denying it's existence

I think you need to go to church once.Just once.See what it's like.See the atmosphere,and the way people open up with God,it's really quite amazing.
Got dragged to church be my grandmother plenty. Not thrilled with it.
Though apparently as a tyke I liked the singing. When the singing ended and the minister started his sermon I stood up on the pew and told him to shut up so we could go back to singing. I'm sure my grandmother wanted to crawl into a hole in the ground.

Why do you think that robots have no ability to think, and that they have any less free will than we do?

I was just using robots as an example. Use empty cocke bottles if ya want. :)

And here I disagree very much. I do not think that a benevolent deity such as the God I believe in ever gives up on us.

I didn't say He does. After all, there have been reports of amazing miracles even after all the ignorance of those "feelings" which I believe are from the Holy Ghost. But what's the point of keep telling someone something if they are just going to keep ignoring it?

Why do you think that robots have no ability to think, and that they have any less free will than we do?

I was just using robots as an example. Use empty coke bottles if ya want. :)

And here I disagree very much. I do not think that a benevolent deity such as the God I believe in ever gives up on us.

I didn't say He does. After all, there have been reports of amazing miracles even after all the ignorance of those "feelings" which I believe are from the Holy Ghost. But what's the point of keep telling someone something if they are just going to keep ignoring it?

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

Any species that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to start seriously re-thinking its way of operation.

Let's assume that I made an online game for people where they can do whatever they like, within certain mechanical limitations imposed by the game. Let's further assume that they abused that freedom to harm others and play the game unfairly, and so I create another set of limitations (the site rules), and some of the players step forward to help make it so that those rules are known and enforced. In this scenario, would you think it makes sense to complain to the creator of the game and ask him to resign because some people on the site are behaving badly and causing a lot of problems?

Got dragged to church be my grandmother plenty. Not thrilled with it.
Though apparently as a tyke I liked the singing. When the singing ended and the minister started his sermon I stood up on the pew and told him to shut up so we could go back to singing. I'm sure my grandmother wanted to crawl into a hole in the ground.

I liked the part where we stood up and wished those around us peace. Maybe we could use more of that.

Why be envious of people who require an imaginary friend to feel good about themselves? Especially when that imaginary friend tells them that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to accept it that they're sinners who have to strive all their lives to measure up to that imaginary friend's standards. Spirituality is just another way of distracting yourself from who you really are, a human being. Flawed, maybe, but you should be capable of validating yourself without help from Above.

No,it isn't imaginary.It's quite real.The Protestant religion states that we don't need to strive to reach Christ's standards in order to be a Christian-Luther wrote that.Every human is flawed,so there is no point in trying to be like Christ.

very good that you have found something to give your life meaning and that brings you happiness. (and that you don't try to force it upon others)
i hope that one day i'll find the same. although i know it won't be god. (and i'm not that desperatly searching as it sounds :) )

Why won't you find it?Maybe God will find you.Never know.

No,it isn't imaginary.It's quite real.The Protestant religion states that we don't need to strive to reach Christ's standards in order to be a Christian-Luther wrote that.Every human is flawed,so there is no point in trying to be like Christ.

Yeah, well ... look at it this way, any human parent who continually told his or her children that they are bad, worthless, cannot be expected to live up to his or her standards, would quickly be hauled up on abuse charges. And yet the All Powerful is allowed to do that without question and we're to be thankful. Thanks, but no, thanks.

I think you need to go to church once.Just once.See what it's like.See the atmosphere,and the way people open up with God,it's really quite amazing.
I went to Church on Sunday (I'm an atheist by the way), and I found that what I enjoyed was not people connecting with God, but WITH EACH OTHER! I believe what I see, and I see people helping each other out, because they KNOW it is the right thing to do. It is an atmosphere that is equally achievable at any secular gathering.

OH, I believe in secularism of schools in Britain, because a faith school to my mind is the government endorsement of one faith over another, and it kind of contradicts the idea that people of different faiths should get on.

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

The problem is that dieties are appointed for life. The impeachment process for them is typically quite difficult and has lots of red tape. And blood.

I went to Church on Sunday (I'm an atheist by the way), and I found that what I enjoyed was not people connecting with God, but WITH EACH OTHER! I believe what I see, and I see people helping each other out, because they KNOW it is the right thing to do. It is an atmosphere that is equally achievable at any secular gathering.

It's not a connection with each other,it's not connecting with humans.Being in a relationship,that's connecting with other humans.Being in a church and worshipping God,THAT'S connecting with God.

Why be envious of people who require an imaginary friend to feel good about themselves? Especially when that imaginary friend tells them that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to accept it that they're sinners who have to strive all their lives to measure up to that imaginary friend's standards. Spirituality is just another way of distracting yourself from who you really are, a human being. Flawed, maybe, but you should be capable of validating yourself without help from Above.

I envy them because they probably have it easier if they believe that they can go to heaven and enjoy eternal hapiness if they live by some rules. it's probably also easier to relativate stuff when you are really religious.

"oh, i might have cancer now, but if i take this suffering i'll go to heaven"

instead of

"oh i have cancer, that's probably 20 years of my life in wich i could have done so much"

on the other hand i can live more and realise more in the 'now' because i realise it's my last chance and don't have to worry about those rules.

You'll become a masochist?

No.

Of course, people who don't want to believe there is a God won't listen to what any religious person is saying, so it's best to just ignore 'em.

EDIT: By ignore 'em, I mean don't get angry (as many Muslim/Christians, unfortunatly, do), but rather laugh with them when they say comments such as your's, LazyOtaku.

Yeah, well ... look at it this way, any human parent who continually told his or her children that they are bad, worthless, cannot be expected to live up to his or her standards, would quickly be hauled up on abuse charges. And yet the All Powerful is allowed to do that without question and we're to be thankful. Thanks, but no, thanks.

God doesn't tell us were all worthless,God doesn't abuse us.

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

I love you. As a fellow christian, of course.

I love you. As a fellow christian, of course.

The best kind of love!;)

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

All suffering is opportunity to learn (something).

God occassionally gives us a lesson (something to learn) that is "over our heads" (incomprehensible by us as individuals), and this is interpreted as "undeserved suffering".

Is god "wrong" to try to teach us this "incomprehesible" lesson? And who is this lesson actually directed toward? The "victim" or elsewhom?

Your answer to these questions shows your relationship to god as regards "suffering".


And no,.. god never gives up trying to "get through" even to one who won't "listen", because god does not get "fed up".

Why?

Your personal answer to that question points toward any fallacious conceptions about god that you have.

The best kind of love!;)

Definately!

This topic is quite interesting.
*favorites*

Definately!

This topic is quite interesting.
*favorites*

Indeed it is,it's actually getting harder to find something worth debating on these forums anymore.Tis a sad day.

It's not a connection with each other,it's not connecting with humans.Being in a relationship,that's connecting with other humans.Being in a church and worshipping God,THAT'S connecting with God.

6 years ago when I was a practicing Christian, I incorporated my faith into my daily life, I even believed in creation. I can remember that I just didn't make the same psychological connection alone.

Yeah, well ... look at it this way, any human parent who continually told his or her children that they are bad, worthless, cannot be expected to live up to his or her standards, would quickly be hauled up on abuse charges. And yet the All Powerful is allowed to do that without question and we're to be thankful. Thanks, but no, thanks.

God is not your "parent".

God is your creator.

God does not tell anyone they are bad, worthless, etc, at all.

People do that.


Anyone who thinks that god is a "parent" figure who admonishes "his offspring" has no clue as to who god is,.. and is quite justified in telling those who would have him believe that that he'll have none of it.

But saying "NO!" to a false god is not equivalent to saying "YES!" to god.

You must actively seek to understand god to say "YES!" to god.


Thus, Farn is correct in rejecting the false god presented to him, but is incorrect in rejecting god (the real god) because of that rejection (of the false god).

All suffering is opportunity to learn (something).

God occassionally gives us a lesson (something to learn) that is "over our heads" (incomprehensible by us as individuals), and this is interpreted as "undeserved suffering".

Is god "wrong" to try to teach us this "incomprehesible" lesson? And who is this lesson actually directed toward? The "victim" or elsewhom?

Your answer to these questions shows your relationship to god as regards "suffering".


And no,.. god never gives up trying to "get through" even to one who won't "listen", because god does not get "fed up".

Why?

Your personal answer to that question points toward any fallacious conceptions about god that you have.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that God occasionally likes to play with His creations by afflicting them with suffering, to teach them a lesson that is beyond their capacity to grasp, for the sole purpose of ... what? Making them love Him regardless of what He does to them? That's very appealing.

Indeed it is,it's actually getting harder to find something worth debating on these forums anymore.Tis a sad day.

Yes... I stay away from debating myself. I mean, I dont necesarily boycott it or anything, but.. I read it. I dont participate, usually.

Gave us the ability to heal ourselves but we becamse so reliant on drugs it became redenundant... in my opinion.

Woah, I was not expecting that. Shit, well I suppose nothing I say can salvage an opion along those lines. Better to leave it you to watch your loved one slowly wither away in an excruciating process of grotesque pain and humiliation. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you'll get to experience it yourself, so as to better learn from the experience.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that God occasionally likes to play with His creations by afflicting them with suffering, to teach them a lesson that is beyond their capacity to grasp, for the sole purpose of ... what? Making them love Him regardless of what He does to them? That's very appealing.

I have to disagree-God giving us free will did have one downside,which was the ability to commit sin,which means creating suffering for other people.

Any species that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to start seriously re-thinking its way of operation.

Each generation has left the world in slightly better shape than it was at their onset.

You may not agree with that. That's fine.


Let's assume that I made an online game for people where they can do whatever they like, within certain mechanical limitations imposed by the game. Let's further assume that they abused that freedom to harm others and play the game unfairly, and so I create another set of limitations (the site rules), and some of the players step forward to help make it so that those rules are known and enforced. In this scenario, would you think it makes sense to complain to the creator of the game and ask him to resign because some people on the site are behaving badly and causing a lot of problems?

All the "limitations" of the "game of reality" were set and are utterly unchangable from the moment of "creation".

The rules do not change.

God can't "resign" because in his place would be god if he did resign.

God is not a being, but a "position".


People seem to think that god "does things". He doesn't.

God merely "is".

The way people relate to god is merely indicative of their "worth" as human beings, as opposed to human-shaped animals.

Woah, I was not expecting that. Shit, well I suppose nothing I say can salvage an opion along those lines. Better to leave it you to watch your loved one slowly wither away in an excruciating process of grotesque pain and humiliation. Perhaps, if you are lucky, you'll get to experience it yourself, so as to better learn from the experience.

He's not condemning the use of drugs.That would be retarded.

I have to disagree-God giving us free will did have one downside,which was the ability to commit sin,which means creating suffering for other people.

So you disagree with Govneauvia, that God inflicts suffering sometimes to teach us lessons? In your view, suffering is our own fault.

Why be envious of people who require an imaginary friend to feel good about themselves?

And why be disdainful of those who choose to use a strategy for maintaining their psyches that differs from yours?

Especially when that imaginary friend tells them that the only way they can feel good about themselves is to accept it that they're sinners who have to strive all their lives to measure up to that imaginary friend's standards.

Telling people that they are flawed and urging them to improve doesn't strike me as a horrible thing to do. Quite the opposite really.

Spirituality is just another way of distracting yourself from who you really are, a human being. Flawed, maybe, but you should be capable of validating yourself without help from Above.

Why?

I was just using robots as an example. Use empty cocke bottles if ya want. :)

I do think that inanimate objects are a better example for your purposes.

I didn't say He does. After all, there have been reports of amazing miracles even after all the ignorance of those "feelings" which I believe are from the Holy Ghost. But what's the point of keep telling someone something if they are just going to keep ignoring it?

Because you love them deeply, and when you love someone deeply you keep trying to get through to them no matter how hard it is.

Personally my opinion is that all of this is ridiculous. There's no proof of any of this so-called 'self healing' we supposedly had before we 'ignored god'. We didn't go to medicine for no reason - people were sick and dying, and any 'self healing' powers we may have had were failing miserably. Even getting a fucking headcold could become fatal because we didn't know how to cure it or become better.

When something that god supposedly gave us fails so terribly that it can't even keep us from getting a headcold or keep someone from dying because of it, then maybe it -is- time to start ignoring god and look to more effective avenues of healing.

As for the theory that suffering is a way of teaching: there are better ways. If you had infinite wisdom, intelligence, compassion, knowledge, and EVERYTHING ELSE, you could find a better way, or you could change the world to make it so a better way exists. To take a modified quote from Spiderman: with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility - he's responsible for all the good in the world, as well as all the suffering.

I don't think suffering is necessarily a bad thing. Christ suffered. Our Lady suffered. God knows that the Saints suffered. The fact of the matter is that sometimes, love hurts, and those whom God loves the most ...well...they feel the thorns of Christ's crown.

"No pain, no gain. No gaul, no glory. No cross, no crown." Father John Corrapi

So you disagree with Govneauvia, that God inflicts suffering sometimes to teach us lessons? In your view, suffering is our own fault.

Yes,I am disagreeing with Govneauvia.Suffering is our own fault.People sin,henceforth creating suffering.It is our own fault,God does not sit up in Heaven saying "Ooh,he looks fun,let's kill off his family.Let's make sure that country's harvest goes bad this season.Disease is fun!"That is not God.

And why be disdainful of those who choose to use a strategy for maintaining their psyches that differs from yours?

Telling people that they are flawed and urging them to improve doesn't strike me as a horrible thing to do. Quite the opposite really.

Why?


Quite right, I shouldn't, I suppose. It was just the part about feeling envious that irked me.

As for urging people to improve, I'm all for it, but that's not the message I get from Christianity. As I understand it, humanity has been fundamentally flawed by the Sin of Adam and Eve. Even with the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, humanity's Sin remains and must constantly be struggled with. Your "improvement" is never enough.

Why not realize yourself without "divine" sanction?

we create our own suffering (as humans, meaning that someone else can do something random and you will suffer, not that all suffering is brought upon you by your own actions, although some can be)

I have to disagree-God giving us free will did have one downside,which was the ability to commit sin,which means creating suffering for other people.

Tsk tsk. Committing sin isnt an ability... I havnt really debated much before, so lets see...

Yes, God gave us free will. Committing sin is a choice. Sinning doesnt necesarily mean creating suffering for other people. Sloth, or being lazy, I suppose, COULD create suffering, as in, people having to do something, but it wouldnt HAVE to. The devil wants us to sin, but we do have free will. Its simply about making the right choice. The right choice, however, is always the hard one, and thus is rarely chosen.

so if i listen to the holy ghost all my suffering will end?


No. In fact, if you listen to the Holy Ghost, your sufferings will intensify, in all likelihood. But if you offer up suffering as a prayer for the good of souls...it will be a redemptive suffering, a suffering consolidated with the cross of Christ.

Tsk tsk. Committing sin isnt an ability... I havnt really debated much before, so lets see...

Yes, God gave us free will. Committing sin is a choice. Sinning doesnt necesarily mean creating suffering for other people. Sloth, or being lazy, I suppose, COULD create suffering, as in, people having to do something, but it wouldnt HAVE to. The devil wants us to sin, but we do have free will. Its simply about making the right choice. The right choice, however, is always the hard one, and thus is rarely chosen.

All true,but on a larger scale,sinning often does create suffering.I'm talking community,even Government level.Sloth is not going to cause suffering if your just lazing around at home.

Each generation has left the world in slightly better shape than it was at their onset.

You may not agree with that. That's fine.

Good. Because I definitely don't agree with that, because I don't see sufficient evidence for it. What I do see evidence of is technological advancement and cultural shifts that have made things different, but not overall any better.

All the "limitations" of the "game of reality" were set and are utterly unchangable from the moment of "creation".

The rules do not change.

God can't "resign" because in his place would be god if he did resign.

God is not a being, but a "position".

People seem to think that god "does things". He doesn't.

God merely "is".

The way people relate to god is merely indicative of their "worth" as human beings, as opposed to human-shaped animals.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're a deist, given many of the underlying assumptions in your post. Am I correct?

Because frankly, we're hitting the point where our basic assumptions about the nature of God will be causing irreconcilable clashes.

All true,but on a larger scale,sinning often does create suffering.I'm talking community,even Government level.Sloth is not going to cause suffering if your just lazing around at home.

You are quite right. For example to prove your point, Guy 1 gets angry at Guy 2, and murders him. That would be wrath. Then, because of that, Both Guy 1 and Guy 2's families will suffer, as well as whoever is on jury duty, they may have better things to do, and a grand ammount of other possibilities.

Yes,I am disagreeing with Govneauvia.Suffering is our own fault.People sin,henceforth creating suffering.It is our own fault,God does not sit up in Heaven saying "Ooh,he looks fun,let's kill off his family.Let's make sure that country's harvest goes bad this season.Disease is fun!"That is not God.

I was about to offer the Book of Job in rebuttal, but realized that in that tale it's not God who does the afflicting, it's Satan. With God's permission, of course. God has basically entered into a wager, that He can allow Satan to do anything and everything to Job short of killing him, and Job will still praise God. A most pleasant deity.

Good. Because I definitely don't agree with that, because I don't see sufficient evidence for it. What I do see evidence of is technological advancement and cultural shifts that have made things different, but not overall any better.

Definitely.The world is in much worse shape generally-wars,environment/climate change,nothing much being done about civil war and famine in Africa and all that jazz.
Technically better,socially worse.

I was about to offer the Book of Job in rebuttal, but realized that in that tale it's not God who does the afflicting, it's Satan. With God's permission, of course. God has basically entered into a wager, that He can allow Satan to do anything and everything to Job short of killing him, and Job will still praise God. A most pleasant deity.

Ever heard of Faust?

Good. Because I definitely don't agree with that, because I don't see sufficient evidence for it. What I do see evidence of is technological advancement and cultural shifts that have made things different, but not overall any better.



I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're a deist, given many of the underlying assumptions in your post. Am I correct?

Because frankly, we're hitting the point where our basic assumptions about the nature of God will be causing irreconcilable clashes.

I'm not familiar with any of those particular beliefs being in the Deist faith, though to be honest the religion is pretty laid-back. There's no set belief code other than "peace, love, chill the fuck out - it's what god wants", to paraphrase.

I was about to offer the Book of Job in rebuttal, but realized that in that tale it's not God who does the afflicting, it's Satan. With God's permission, of course. God has basically entered into a wager, that He can allow Satan to do anything and everything to Job short of killing him, and Job will still praise God. A most pleasant deity.

However, the MORAL of the story is that Job would still praise God even if being tortured by Satan.A lot of Bible stories have to be looked at a more subtle level,instead of being taken at face value.The reality is that God would not do that,it's a representation of Job's faith-something we should relate to.

However, the MORAL of the story is that Job would still praise God even if being tortured by Satan.A lot of Bible stories have to be looked at a more subtle level,instead of being taken at face value.The reality is that God would not do that,it's a representation of Job's faith-something we should relate to.

Yes, exactly. I havnt exactly read the entire bible, ive read part of the middle, and part of the begin, and some parts scrambled everywhere else, but you really have to just read it, and accept it. In some ways, knowledge can be evil. (I.E. Adam and eve.. Forbidden tree... 'n' such)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
All suffering is opportunity to learn (something).

God occassionally gives us a lesson (something to learn) that is "over our heads" (incomprehensible by us as individuals), and this is interpreted as "undeserved suffering".

Is god "wrong" to try to teach us this "incomprehesible" lesson? And who is this lesson actually directed toward? The "victim" or elsewhom?

Your answer to these questions shows your relationship to god as regards "suffering".


And no,.. god never gives up trying to "get through" even to one who won't "listen", because god does not get "fed up".

Why?

Your personal answer to that question points toward any fallacious conceptions about god that you have.


As far as I can tell, you're saying that God occasionally likes to play with His creations by afflicting them with suffering, to teach them a lesson that is beyond their capacity to grasp, for the sole purpose of ... what? Making them love Him regardless of what He does to them? That's very appealing.

That is your interpretation of what I said?

Be very careful about what you say, especially in regards to the subject of god, as it speaks volumes about your self (your personal mental makeup).

It was a good question, though.

God doesn't "play" with anything. Creation "plays". God is simply there.

How a creation (an example of which would be an individual human being) reacts to some part of creation (the world) is for the creation to learn from and for creation to teach.

In truth, god doesn't "teach", because that is why creation was created. Teaching is creation's job.


God also doesn't wish us to love/adore/worship him.

He simply is there to love/adore/worship is we choose to do so.

The only way that god would "get anything out of" being loved/adored/worshipped would be if he had a "need" or "desire" associated ONLY with a creation, and he's not a creation.

God is simply here for us,.. we who can "sense" him.

For others, there is only the "cruelty" and "senselessness" of the world (creation).

As for the theory that suffering is a way of teaching: there are better ways. If you had infinite wisdom, intelligence, compassion, knowledge, and EVERYTHING ELSE, you could find a better way, or you could change the world to make it so a better way exists. To take a modified quote from Spiderman: with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility - he's responsible for all the good in the world, as well as all the suffering.

Do you think God has ultimate power (omnipotence)? I'm not sure on that point myself.

As for urging people to improve, I'm all for it, but that's not the message I get from Christianity. As I understand it, humanity has been fundamentally flawed by the Sin of Adam and Eve. Even with the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, humanity's Sin remains and must constantly be struggled with. Your "improvement" is never enough.

Not enough in the sense that we will not become perfect in our lifetimes, no. But it is enough in the sense that our improvements, and the improvements of those that come after us, can someday bring about a world of such quality that it will justify the existence of our species. For Christianity in particular, bringing about that world is what is called "Heaven" or the "Kingdom of God" and getting there is called "salvation", the healing of our society and our world. An admirable goal to which we contribute by improving ourselves (thereby improving part of our world) as much as we can.

Why not realize yourself without "divine" sanction?

Some people's conceptual matrices (for a variety of reasons) work better with anthropocentric and archetypal symbols and rules, just as others work better with logical and scientific concepts and rules.

That is your interpretation of what I said?

Be very careful about what you say, especially in regards to the subject of god, as it speaks volumes about your self (your personal mental makeup).

It was a good question, though.

God doesn't "play" with anything. Creation "plays". God is simply there.

How a creation (an example of which would be an individual human being) reacts to some part of creation (the world) is for the creation to learn from and for creation to teach.

In truth, god doesn't "teach", because that is why creation was created. Teaching is creation's job.


God also doesn't wish us to love/adore/worship him.

He simply is there to love/adore/worship is we choose to do so.

The only way that god would "get anything out of" being loved/adored/worshipped would be if he had a "need" or "desire" associated ONLY with a creation, and he's not a creation.

God is simply here for us,.. we who can "sense" him.

For others, there is only the "cruelty" and "senselessness" of the world (creation).

You need to follow that logic all the way through. If god just made "creation" and left it because he's apathetic or doesn't care or whatever the reason may be, then why even make it at all? If he doesn't give a shit about what we do or how we feel or what we think of him, then why bother making it? Furthermore, why even bother making a religion? How would we know about any of this unless god took the time to tell us about himself through the bible? So either he cares, or he doesn't care and christianity is a lie that has - in truth - nothing to do with god, because god doesn't care enough to tell us about himself.

I had this whole thing I was going to say about why there is suffering, but most of it seems to be said. We have suffering, because man sinned and as a consequence suffering entered the world. The world ceased to be perfect. God could change it yes, but He gives us the chance to change things. If we listen to God, if we listen to what Christ taught us we could change things, but we keep returning to our sinful natures. The beauty is God loves us despite it. He sent the Son to pay the price for our sins.

As for the bit about Job.
1) God let Satan bring suffering upon Job to serve as an example to us.
2) God knew that Job could endure the suffering through his faith.
3) When everything was over God blessed Job by giving him even more than he had lost.

This can also be said of us. We may suffer here on earth, but we will receive so much more than we ever had here on earth.

I'm not familiar with any of those particular beliefs being in the Deist faith, though to be honest the religion is pretty laid-back. There's no set belief code other than "peace, love, chill the fuck out - it's what god wants", to paraphrase.

Deism isn't really a religion, though sometimes deists are religious to some degree, anymore than theism is a religion, though many theists are religious to some degree as well.

Specifically, I was referring to the points in his post about God not being active in his creation as it continues to function in the mechanical way it was always designed to function. (There is often the image of God as a clockmaker who winds up the universe and then watches it associated with the deist belief-set.)

Deism isn't really a religion, though sometimes deists are religious to some degree, anymore than theism is a religion, though many theists are religious to some degree as well.

Specifically, I was referring to the points in his post about God not being active in his creation as it continues to function in the mechanical way it was always designed to function. (There is often the image of God as a clockmaker who winds up the universe and then watches it associated with the deist belief-set.)

How could god -not- be active, though? If the universe is a clock, then he has to create the clock as well. He has to create the metal it's being created from. He has to create physics so the clock will work. He has to create everything just so at the end he can wind up this clock and then he just leaves it alone forever? What kind of sense does that make?

Personally my opinion is that all of this is ridiculous. There's no proof of any of this so-called 'self healing' we supposedly had before we 'ignored god'. We didn't go to medicine for no reason - people were sick and dying, and any 'self healing' powers we may have had were failing miserably. Even getting a fucking headcold could become fatal because we didn't know how to cure it or become better.

When something that god supposedly gave us fails so terribly that it can't even keep us from getting a headcold or keep someone from dying because of it, then maybe it -is- time to start ignoring god and look to more effective avenues of healing.

n my humble opinion, when you "listen" to things that help you to heal, such as the efficacy of plants for example, you ARE at that time "LISTENING" to god as to how to "fix" your problem.

Just as god created a body that could "malfunction", god created some plants to help fix the malfunction, but to be able to USE the creation that heals, you have to pay attention to THE SITUATION, which is a combination of malfunction, medicine, and YOUR ABILITY TO NOTICE the "word of god".

The "word of god" in this case, is a particular space-time situation that can teach you something for future use.

For example, for fixing headcolds, you need someone to have a headcold, and a particular plant, and what to do with the plant.

That is how god "communicates".

Through his creations.


As for the theory that suffering is a way of teaching: there are better ways. If you had infinite wisdom, intelligence, compassion, knowledge, and EVERYTHING ELSE, you could find a better way, or you could change the world to make it so a better way exists.

Firstly, "suffering" is not necessarily dire in nature.

ANY difficulty or annoyance is "suffering".

Secondly, I submit that there is NO better way, indeed no OTHER way, to teach than for the "student" to experience what needs to be learned, and that is ALWAYS through "suffering" (work and effort).

The ONLY alternative to this form of learning (teaching) is by direct "download" of a "learning", and what would be the fun in that?

God doesn't do "downloading" because it violates the "freewill" condition of his creation.


To take a modified quote from Spiderman: with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility - he's responsible for all the good in the world, as well as all the suffering.

And this is where you assign god to a power that he doesn't have, which is the power to DO.

God does not DO. He DID.

The creation is done. Now the only thing that DOES is creation.


The things of creation have the "responsibilities" (tasks/abilities/characteristics) ceeded to them, as it were, by god, and they are responsible for them.

Not god. Thus god is held indemnified.


"The fault lies not in our stars, but in our selves."

How could god -not- be active, though? If the universe is a clock, then he has to create the clock as well. He has to create the metal it's being created from. He has to create physics so the clock will work. He has to create everything just so at the end he can wind up this clock and then he just leaves it alone forever? What kind of sense does that make?

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either, but that could be for a couple reasons. It could be because I have as part of my paradigm a God who is active, or it could be because I on a personal level just don't see how making something and then sitting there watching it and saying "cool" is appealing. Some people do that, though, with either art or other creative skills.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either, but that could be for a couple reasons. It could be because I have as part of my paradigm a God who is active, or it could be because I on a personal level just don't see how making something and then sitting there watching it and saying "cool" is appealing. Some people do that, though, with either art or other creative skills.

Yeah but those people with art and creative skills don't create life and then watch it die while saying "cool". Slight difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farnhamia
So you disagree with Govneauvia, that God inflicts suffering sometimes to teach us lessons? In your view, suffering is our own fault.

Yes,I am disagreeing with Govneauvia.

Most do. Of course they're wrong,.. but everyone has a right to their opinion. :)


Suffering is our own fault.People sin,henceforth creating suffering.

What, to you, IS "suffering"?

Is it ONLY that suffering that is "undeserved" in the conventional sense, while being "deserved" in the "spiritual" sense?

To me, suffering is any discomfort whatsoever.

Whether it's perceived as "deserved" or not is irrelevent to me.


It is our own fault,God does not sit up in Heaven saying "Ooh,he looks fun,let's kill off his family.Let's make sure that country's harvest goes bad this season.Disease is fun!"That is not God.

Where does god "sit", to you?

(( I know,.. a VERY open question,.. but I'd like to know if god is perceived by you as a creation or the creator.

If he has the abilty to DO, then, to me, and we'll UNDOUBTABLY disagree on this, what you're describing is a creation, because god's ability to DO anything was terminated at the creation of the creation. ))

He's not condemning the use of drugs.That would be retarded.
Lets take a look shall we?
First was the OP, which basically said all suffering is a consequence of us not listening to that little voice in our head (which happens to be god).

Then I said this:

Ok so you develop cancer. What did the holy spirit do to guide you out of that?

hoping to show that not all suffering is avoidable by the sound advice of a god-figure in your head. Also insinuating, that by his beliefs, god directly inflicted that suffering upon the individual (though not saying it outright).

In response he said this:
Gave us the ability to heal ourselves but we becamse so reliant on drugs it became redenundant... in my opinion.
To which was I was dumbfounded. Not only did he illogically evade my premise that cancer was unavoidable, he also stated that everyone who dies the disgustingly painful and denigrating death of cancer had the ability to live had they had listened to god, (or used his magical ability). He also puts forward that the reason that they couldn't use this magical ability was because they were so numb from drugs, the fuckstick.

Further, in response to another poster who was equally bewildered by his outrageous premise he quoted:

I'm suggesting it as a possibility. After all, there are some pretty amazing stories related to spiritual stuff like meditation (astral projection etc), so why not the ability to heal one's self? As I said, I am neither confirming or denying it's existence

Furthering the idea that the cancer afflicted can, and thus should, have healed themselves with godslove, sunshine and kitten farts. He also makes a weak attempt at a disclaimer, so as to grant himself immunity from his crap.
So in saying that :
1) God can heal all people from cancer, from an untold ability he grants to all cancer sufferers
and
2) Cancer sufferers often can't use this ability because they are too numb from drugs.

He is directly implying that cancer sufferers deserve the suffering they get for using drugs and rejecting god. Well, I say fuck him. However, at the time I was a little speechless. Nevertheless, I let it slide even after I lowered my self to his purility to comprehend that shit. But then you come along and try to back him up with a completely misleading of what he was only in part doing. Well I say, smarten up, or fuck you too.

Pardon the french.

n my humble opinion, when you "listen" to things that help you to heal, such as the efficacy of plants for example, you ARE at that time "LISTENING" to god as to how to "fix" your problem.

Just as god created a body that could "malfunction", god created some plants to help fix the malfunction, but to be able to USE the creation that heals, you have to pay attention to THE SITUATION, which is a combination of malfunction, medicine, and YOUR ABILITY TO NOTICE the "word of god".

The "word of god" in this case, is a particular space-time situation that can teach you something for future use.

For example, for fixing headcolds, you need someone to have a headcold, and a particular plant, and what to do with the plant.

That is how god "communicates".

Through his creations.



Firstly, "suffering" is not necessarily dire in nature.

ANY difficulty or annoyance is "suffering".

Secondly, I submit that there is NO better way, indeed no OTHER way, to teach than for the "student" to experience what needs to be learned, and that is ALWAYS through "suffering" (work and effort).

The ONLY alternative to this form of learning (teaching) is by direct "download" of a "learning", and what would be the fun in that?

God doesn't do "downloading" because it violates the "freewill" condition of his creation.



And this is where you assign god to a power that he doesn't have, which is the power to DO.

God does not DO. He DID.

The creation is done. Now the only thing that DOES is creation.


The things of creation have the "responsibilities" (tasks/abilities/characteristics) ceeded to them, as it were, by god, and they are responsible for them.

Not god. Thus god is held indemnified.


"The fault lies not in our stars, but in our selves."

So if, when we use medicine, we're listening to god telling us that we should use it, then who are you to say what is and is not from god? By that logic, whatever benefits us is supposed to be used regardless of consequence, including but not limited to: abortion, cloning, and stem cell research.

Personally I don't agree with cloning, but I recognize that if we had extra organs just laying around, people wouldn't have to wait in line for a donor, and lives would be saved. According to you, because it would save lives, god must want us to do it.

Also, I already covered that "creation" thing, and that I don't agree with it or think it makes any sense.

Yeah but those people with art and creative skills don't create life and then watch it die while saying "cool". Slight difference.

Slight difference, yes. Analogies tend to have those by their nature. ;)

I don't know why, but this thread really pisses me off.

we create our own suffering (as humans, meaning that someone else can do something random and you will suffer, not that all suffering is brought upon you by your own actions, although some can be)
Again, cancer. If suffering was a disease, cancer would be it. Yet, it can be developed completely naturally (such as from an infection). No humans involved in that one.

I don't know why, but this thread really pisses me off.
Likewise, however, I think I know why...

n my humble opinion, when you "listen" to things that help you to heal, such as the efficacy of plants for example, you ARE at that time "LISTENING" to god as to how to "fix" your problem.

Just as god created a body that could "malfunction", god created some plants to help fix the malfunction, but to be able to USE the creation that heals, you have to pay attention to THE SITUATION, which is a combination of malfunction, medicine, and YOUR ABILITY TO NOTICE the "word of god".

The "word of god" in this case, is a particular space-time situation that can teach you something for future use.

For example, for fixing headcolds, you need someone to have a headcold, and a particular plant, and what to do with the plant.

That is how god "communicates".

Through his creations.



Firstly, "suffering" is not necessarily dire in nature.

ANY difficulty or annoyance is "suffering".

Secondly, I submit that there is NO better way, indeed no OTHER way, to teach than for the "student" to experience what needs to be learned, and that is ALWAYS through "suffering" (work and effort).

The ONLY alternative to this form of learning (teaching) is by direct "download" of a "learning", and what would be the fun in that?

God doesn't do "downloading" because it violates the "freewill" condition of his creation.



And this is where you assign god to a power that he doesn't have, which is the power to DO.

God does not DO. He DID.

The creation is done. Now the only thing that DOES is creation.


The things of creation have the "responsibilities" (tasks/abilities/characteristics) ceeded to them, as it were, by god, and they are responsible for them.

Not god. Thus god is held indemnified.


"The fault lies not in our stars, but in our selves."


CASSIUS
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

And herein lies the point where we must differ, dear Govneauvia, for I choose not to be an underling to any god that needs must play so over-subtle with his creations. I would walk out from under those world-bestriding legs and look up at the stars myself, and see them with mine own eyes, and wonder at them. And on this earth I am a free human being. I have known love and sorrow, joy and the depths. I strive to learn each and every day and will until I die. I ought perhaps have not engaged in this debate, save that the post I responded to touched a nerve. I do not, truly, think any less of anyone of faith. Believe what you will. I ask only that you not think less of me for not sharing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Each generation has left the world in slightly better shape than it was at their onset.

You may not agree with that. That's fine.


Good. Because I definitely don't agree with that, because I don't see sufficient evidence for it. What I do see evidence of is technological advancement and cultural shifts that have made things different, but not overall any better.

That's fine. That's your interpretation of reality.

Your worldview is that the world is in decay.

Mine is that the world is progressing.

May you be more than happy with your viewpoint.


Quote:
All the "limitations" of the "game of reality" were set and are utterly unchangable from the moment of "creation".

The rules do not change.

God can't "resign" because in his place would be god if he did resign.

God is not a being, but a "position".

People seem to think that god "does things". He doesn't.

God merely "is".

The way people relate to god is merely indicative of their "worth" as human beings, as opposed to human-shaped animals.


I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're a deist, given many of the underlying assumptions in your post. Am I correct?

Many people have said that, but I refuse to "commit" to that,.. mostly because many people have said that.

My views are what my views are. You can draw a conclusion as to what they are based on yur experience with me.


Because frankly, we're hitting the point where our basic assumptions about the nature of God will be causing irreconcilable clashes.

That's very true.

The thing is, though, that there's no need for us to "clash" on these basic assumptions.

I have no interest in changing your basic assumptions. I'd just like to know what they are,.. and would hope that you'd like to know what mine are, so that we can understand each other better.

It's fun to explicitly discover the absolute incompatabilities in worldviews, so that we can agree to disagree about them, and go on to find things that we CAN agree on so as to make our lives better.

Slight difference, yes. Analogies tend to have those by their nature. ;)

Yeah, but the analogy doesn't fit. I have yet to see an analogy - ANY ANALOGY - that connects with god. Why? Because god is infinite, therefore he has complete control over everything that happens and does not happen, and no human analogy can ever compare to something like that.

Maybe if the art kid created the clay from his infinite power... no! That's not an analogy, that's just saying the kid is god and we are the art, in which case it's still very fucked up that god would do nothing while we die.

Likewise, however, I think I know why...

It's just.. offensive to me.

And I know why it's pissing me off now.

Lets take a look shall we?
First was the OP, which basically said all suffering is a consequence of us not listening to that little voice in our head (which happens to be god).

Then I said this:



hoping to show that not all suffering is avoidable by the sound advice of a god-figure in your head. Also insinuating, that by his beliefs, god directly inflicted that suffering upon the individual (though not saying it outright).

In response he said this:

To which was I was dumbfounded. Not only did he illogically evade my premise that cancer was unavoidable, he also stated that everyone who dies the disgustingly painful and denigrating death of cancer had the ability to live had they had listened to god, (or used his magical ability). He also puts forward that the reason that they couldn't use this magical ability was because they were so numb from drugs, the fuckstick.

Further, in response to another poster who was equally bewildered by his outrageous premise he quoted:



Furthering the idea that the cancer afflicted can, and thus should, have healed themselves with godslove, sunshine and kitten farts. He also makes a weak attempt at a disclaimer, so as to grant himself immunity from his crap.
So in saying that :
1) God can heal all people from cancer, from an untold ability he grants to all cancer sufferers
and
2) Cancer sufferers often can't use this ability because they are too numb from drugs.

He is directly implying that cancer sufferers deserve the suffering they get for using drugs and rejecting god. Well, I say fuck him. However, at the time I was a little speechless. Nevertheless, I let it slide even after I lowered my self to his purility to comprehend that shit. But then you come along and try to back him up with a completely misleading of what he was only in part doing. Well I say, smarten up, or fuck you too.

Pardon the french.

The funniest thing is, in this christians view(being myself), you are only being used, by satan, to create more conflict. Thus, the swearing and agression and such.

The funniest thing is, in this christians view(being myself), you are only being used, by satan, to create more conflict. Thus, the swearing and agression and such.

Or, -you're- being used by satan to create more conflict, thus the dodging of the question entirely and probably not reading the entire post and such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
That is your interpretation of what I said?

Be very careful about what you say, especially in regards to the subject of god, as it speaks volumes about your self (your personal mental makeup).

It was a good question, though.

God doesn't "play" with anything. Creation "plays". God is simply there.

How a creation (an example of which would be an individual human being) reacts to some part of creation (the world) is for the creation to learn from and for creation to teach.

In truth, god doesn't "teach", because that is why creation was created. Teaching is creation's job.


God also doesn't wish us to love/adore/worship him.

He simply is there to love/adore/worship is we choose to do so.

The only way that god would "get anything out of" being loved/adored/worshipped would be if he had a "need" or "desire" associated ONLY with a creation, and he's not a creation.

God is simply here for us,.. we who can "sense" him.

For others, there is only the "cruelty" and "senselessness" of the world (creation).

You need to follow that logic all the way through. If god just made "creation" and left it because he's apathetic or doesn't care or whatever the reason may be, then why even make it at all?

Does it matter whether it was created because "there was nothing better to do that god-day", or whether it was for some "big joo-joo" reason?

The creation was made, period.

Our task is to deal with it. If part of that task is to cogitate over "why creation was created", then we're free to do just that.

Go for it! :)


If he doesn't give a shit about what we do or how we feel or what we think of him, then why bother making it?

Because he knows how the "story" (the creation through time) ends.

Gods job, for whatever reason, was the creation of the creation.

Our job is to be creations in creation.

Have fun with your job.


Furthermore, why even bother making a religion? How would we know about any of this unless god took the time to tell us about himself through the bible?

God does not make anything, other than the creation, and certainly not religions.

Man makes religion (a creation), in response to the "impression" that we humans get about the creator (god) of the creation.


So either he cares, or he doesn't care and christianity is a lie that has - in truth - nothing to do with god, because god doesn't care enough to tell us about himself.

God does not exist to "care", but to have created.

God "cared" enough to create creation, and that is the ultimate "care" of all cares.

Tsk tsk. Committing sin isnt an ability... I havnt really debated much before, so lets see...

Yes, God gave us free will. Committing sin is a choice. Sinning doesnt necesarily mean creating suffering for other people. Sloth, or being lazy, I suppose, COULD create suffering, as in, people having to do something, but it wouldnt HAVE to. The devil wants us to sin, but we do have free will. Its simply about making the right choice. The right choice, however, is always the hard one, and thus is rarely chosen.

If we are going to play bible games, then check your genesis. God may have given man free will, but he gave him no knowledge of good or evil. He then punished them for disobeying him.

What?

Of course they were going to disobey! He plonked them down in paradise with the will to do anything they liked, but no concept of right or wrong, and then wandered off, leaving them in the care of a snake, who actually told them the truth about the damn fruit.

Incidently the Job story annoys me greatly as well - God effectivly gives Satan permission to murder this man's entire family (not to mention all he servants who everyone ignores) to teach one man a lesson! How messed up is that? If you annoy me, I don't go around and shoot your family!

Or, -you're- being used by satan to create more conflict, thus the dodging of the question entirely and probably not reading the entire post and such.

Quite the possibility. But, I was not aware of a question in the quote. I did not quote it to be answering a question, but simply to express my view on the post. But still, you are quite right about being used.

I try to think about things where everything that happens is caused by either side, God, or satan. It is however, difficult at times, to discern what side it could be coming from. If you think about things, or are over-analytical, like I am, then you think about how it could be used for either. And then, you realize you have wasted time, and still not made a decision.

If we are going to play bible games, then check your genesis. God may have given man free will, but he gave him no knowledge of good or evil. He then punished them for disobeying him.

What?

Of course they were going to disobey! He plonked them down in paradise with the will to do anything they liked, but no concept of right or wrong, and then wandered off, leaving them in the care of a snake, who actually told them the truth about the damn fruit.

Incidently the Job story annoys me greatly as well - God effectivly gives Satan permission to murder this man's entire family (not to mention all he servants who everyone ignores) to teach one man a lesson! How messed up is that? If you annoy me, I don't go around and shoot your family!

Actually, it's not to teach Job a lesson, Job already loves and praises the Lord. No, God has said to Satan, "I have this worshipper down on Earth and no matter what you do to him, he will still worship and love me." Of course, Satan started it, but then, Satan was created by God, too, so ...

The funniest thing is, in this christians view(being myself), you are only being used, by satan, to create more conflict. Thus, the swearing and agression and such.
Yeah, keep outsourcing my responsibility.

If we are going to play bible games, then check your genesis. God may have given man free will, but he gave him no knowledge of good or evil. He then punished them for disobeying him.

What?

Of course they were going to disobey! He plonked them down in paradise with the will to do anything they liked, but no concept of right or wrong, and then wandered off, leaving them in the care of a snake, who actually told them the truth about the damn fruit.

Incidently the Job story annoys me greatly as well - God effectivly gives Satan permission to murder this man's entire family (not to mention all he servants who everyone ignores) to teach one man a lesson! How messed up is that? If you annoy me, I don't go around and shoot your family!

Oh sweet, bible games. Can we have a sewing circle next? Anyways. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. I dont believe Eve was ever informed. The snake(satan) got Eve to eat from the tree, and then Adam, not knowing what it was, ate it too. God then punished them. You dont have to understand why. God isnt meant to be understood, just accepted.

Quite the possibility. But, I was not aware of a question in the quote. I did not quote it to be answering a question, but simply to express my view on the post. But still, you are quite right about being used.

I try to think about things where everything that happens is caused by either side, God, or satan. It is however, difficult at times, to discern what side it could be coming from. If you think about things, or are over-analytical, like I am, then you think about how it could be used for either. And then, you realize you have wasted time, and still not made a decision.

He pointed out a contradiction in the OP. He also posed a question as to how someone could

"He is directly implying that cancer sufferers deserve the suffering they get for using drugs and rejecting god. Well, I say fuck him. However, at the time I was a little speechless. Nevertheless, I let it slide even after I lowered my self to his purility to comprehend that shit. But then you come along and try to back him up with a completely misleading of what he was only in part doing. Well I say, smarten up, or fuck you too."

It's got no question mark, but it's an assertive statement that demands response, much like a question does.

Also, lemme save you some time: IT'S ALL GOD. Whenever satan does something, it's god ALLOWING satan to do something, so really, it's always god, and it doesn't matter if satan was the instrument through which he acted, but it was god the entire time, no matter what.

Yeah, keep outsourcing my responsibility.

Okay.

Oh sweet, bible games. Can we have a sewing circle next? Anyways. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. I dont believe Eve was ever informed. The snake(satan) got Eve to eat from the tree, and then Adam, not knowing what it was, ate it too. God then punished them. You dont have to understand why. God isnt meant to be understood, just accepted.

I disagree. I think that if god is not meant to be understood, and we are all in fact sheep that are simply meant to obey and not question or try to learn the meaning of things, then there is no point in living.

Also, what kind of circular logic is that? God clearly doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is no trick to it - in punishing them, he's shown that he's a jackass who punishes those who don't know better and are not at fault. That is the opinion of the human mind to a situation like this - the human mind, which he has created. If you don't want to think about god or purpose or anything like that, just say so, instead of trying to hide behind things that might make sense. Saves us all a lot of time.

Oh sweet, bible games. Can we have a sewing circle next? Anyways. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. I dont believe Eve was ever informed. The snake(satan) got Eve to eat from the tree, and then Adam, not knowing what it was, ate it too. God then punished them. You dont have to understand why. God isnt meant to be understood, just accepted.

of course Eve knew, didn't you read the Bible?

Does it matter whether it was created because "there was nothing better to do that god-day", or whether it was for some "big joo-joo" reason?

The creation was made, period.

Our task is to deal with it. If part of that task is to cogitate over "why creation was created", then we're free to do just that.

Go for it! :)



Because he knows how the "story" (the creation through time) ends.

Gods job, for whatever reason, was the creation of the creation.

Our job is to be creations in creation.

Have fun with your job.



God does not make anything, other than the creation, and certainly not religions.

Man makes religion (a creation), in response to the "impression" that we humans get about the creator (god) of the creation.



God does not exist to "care", but to have created.

God "cared" enough to create creation, and that is the ultimate "care" of all cares.

You're missing the point. If god created "creation", and we are all simply acting out the motions of "creation", and it is self-sufficient and he is no longer needed, then there is in fact no purpose. I refuse to simply say he did such a thing and just leave it at that, stating that to further question the theory is pointless, when in fact it is VERY important because it could possibly nullify the entire thing if it doesn't make sense. There are other avenues of possibility that make more sense, and it would only be logical to prefer those rather than the one you're suggesting and asserting to.

Also, let's assume you're right. For a second. Hypothetically.

God created creation. This would, invariably, include the birth of humankind, and the publishing of the bible. He created these things within creation. It's no different than if he created it without using the shell of creation to do it for him - he created it, regardless. He made the programming of creation to create these things - he made these things.

It's the same exact thing. "creation" might as well not exist, because it voids itself out.

of course Eve knew, didn't you read the Bible?

I stated in a previous post that I have read some of it, but not the entire thing. So in other words, No. Anyways. Im gonna stop now, and go play a game. Tis been fun. C-ya

(For reference, the game is Team Fortress Classic)

I disagree. I think that if god is not meant to be understood, and we are all in fact sheep that are simply meant to obey and not question or try to learn the meaning of things, then there is no point in living.

Also, what kind of circular logic is that? God clearly doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is no trick to it - in punishing them, he's shown that he's a jackass who punishes those who don't know better and are not at fault. That is the opinion of the human mind to a situation like this - the human mind, which he has created. If you don't want to think about god or purpose or anything like that, just say so, instead of trying to hide behind things that might make sense. Saves us all a lot of time.

I think you're approaching it from the wrong direction. The point is not that God should prove Himself to you. You must prove yourself worthy of God. If you assume that, you can very easily accept the part about God being beyond your understanding. You must believe and accept and not question. Once upon a time, Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before He began the Creation? The Saint replied, "Creating Hell for people who ask such questions."

Quite the possibility. But, I was not aware of a question in the quote. I did not quote it to be answering a question, but simply to express my view on the post. But still, you are quite right about being used.

I try to think about things where everything that happens is caused by either side, God, or satan. It is however, difficult at times, to discern what side it could be coming from. If you think about things, or are over-analytical, like I am, then you think about how it could be used for either. And then, you realize you have wasted time, and still not made a decision.

I would say that you are under analytical. Trying to boil every action to either black or white. What about actions which are mutually bveneficial to God and satan, but to different plans? Surely God and satan would think beyond individual moves.

Oh sweet, bible games. Can we have a sewing circle next? Anyways. God told Adam not to eat from the tree. I dont believe Eve was ever informed. The snake(satan) got Eve to eat from the tree, and then Adam, not knowing what it was, ate it too. God then punished them. You dont have to understand why. God isnt meant to be understood, just accepted.

Punishing them by kicking them out of paradise and cursing them and all their descendants? That's like a 5 year old breaking a vase, so in response you break his arms and legs.

Besides the whole point of free will is that you don't just blindly accept things. If you accept something evil as acceptable just because it's god doing it, then god is a dictator - and as a rule dictator's tend to be not the nicest people you've ever met. If I was asked to put my faith in a being that started innumerable wars, and slaughtered women and children just because they didn't agree with his point of view, not to mention commited several acts of genocide, I would refuse - period.

Okay.
Help you keep faith in humanity?

I think you're approaching it from the wrong direction. The point is not that God should prove Himself to you. You must prove yourself worthy of God. If you assume that, you can very easily accept the part about God being beyond your understanding. You must believe and accept and not question. Once upon a time, Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before He began the Creation? The Saint replied, "Creating Hell for people who ask such questions."

Well, I take a few issues with this post.

1. Why would I have to prove myself to something that has yet to prove to me that it exists? It's counterproductive. I could be trying to prove myself to Allah or the Pharoahs of yore with the same intent, not knowing if I'm proving myself to the right thing. This is exactly why he must prove himself to me first.

2. If I believe and accept and not question, then we go -nowhere-. There's no discussion, no science, no purpose, no drive, no life. We just sheep around like pilgrims staying in one place, burning the witches, praising god, damning satan, blaming "him" for evil, granting "Him" our worship for good, never thinking for ourselves.

3. Saint Augustine is a bastard, for two reasons:
A: He dodged the question entirely. It's like, "I won't even think about it. In fact, fuck you for thinking about it." - what an asshole.
B: According to the bible, god didn't even create hell for sinners - he created it for satan and the devils. It appears that it was later modified to be a place of torture and eternal damnation. Of course, I disagree with this, as I disagree with most of the content of the bible, but that's just me. As a saint, he's pretty much not allowed to disagree with the bible, and apparently, is not allowed to even WONDER about anything that is not explained in said bible.

He's a dick.

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

I would agree. However I believe that every person, baptized or no, has those feelings that warn them of danger, and try to persuade them to do right. Most people call it your conscience. Those who have the 'Gift of the Holy Ghost', are entitled to still greater blessings, such as healing, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, etc..

This point is made very clear in modern scripture, "For the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with man. And when the Spirit ceaseth to strive with man then cometh speedy destruction, and this grieveth my soul." (2 Nephi 26:11 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/26/11#11)). So, if you ignore the Spirit (call it a conscience or what ever you will) eventually it leaves you alone and that's when we cause ourselves, and others, the most misery.

I believe that God doesn't cause the suffering in this world, we do, by refusing to keep his commandments. Imagine how different this world would be if we would all abide by the Savior's admonition to treat others like we would ourselves be treated, and that's just one commandment.

Why doesn’t he step in and fix all of our mistakes? Because he has an eternal perspective. He knows that there is a life after this one, “The past, the present, and the future are with Him one eternal now” (Joseph Smith), and someone being a have-not in this life, through no fault of their own, will not mar their eternal happiness. But it will adversely affect the happiness of those who cause the innocent to suffer.

If we could see into the eternities that lay beyond death's shadow we would not doubt the justice or mercy of our God. But the natural man is disinclined to trust what he cannot see, and so many proclaim, "let us eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die", and don't care what suffering they inflict in their pursuit of comfort, pleasure, or what ever else they think will make them happy.

Well, I take a few issues with this post.

1. Why would I have to prove myself to something that has yet to prove to me that it exists? It's counterproductive. I could be trying to prove myself to Allah or the Pharoahs of yore with the same intent, not knowing if I'm proving myself to the right thing. This is exactly why he must prove himself to me first.

2. If I believe and accept and not question, then we go -nowhere-. There's no discussion, no science, no purpose, no drive, no life. We just sheep around like pilgrims staying in one place, burning the witches, praising god, damning satan, blaming "him" for evil, granting "Him" our worship for good, never thinking for ourselves.

3. Saint Augustine is a bastard, for two reasons:
A: He dodged the question entirely. It's like, "I won't even think about it. In fact, fuck you for thinking about it." - what an asshole.
B: According to the bible, god didn't even create hell for sinners - he created it for satan and the devils. It appears that it was later modified to be a place of torture and eternal damnation. Of course, I disagree with this, as I disagree with most of the content of the bible, but that's just me. As a saint, he's pretty much not allowed to disagree with the bible, and apparently, is not allowed to even WONDER about anything that is not explained in said bible.

He's a dick.

He's not my favorite, either. I was just explaining what I see as some of the underlying assumptions.

I think you're approaching it from the wrong direction. The point is not that God should prove Himself to you. You must prove yourself worthy of God. If you assume that, you can very easily accept the part about God being beyond your understanding. You must believe and accept and not question. Once upon a time, Saint Augustine was asked what God was doing before He began the Creation? The Saint replied, "Creating Hell for people who ask such questions."

So God is in fact a psychotic dictatorship deity that tortures all who oppose him and will not give an audience until you fully agree with him?

He's not my favorite, either. I was just explaining what I see as some of the underlying assumptions.

*shrugs* It's done nothing for the argument of the christians that say we should blindly worship, and certainly nothing for the argument of the OP.

So God is in fact a psychotic dictatorship deity that tortures all who oppose him and will not give an audience until you fully agree with him?

In the Old testament, at least, he's not particularly pleasant to people who oppose him or his Chosen People: "The Israelite soldiers set on fire all the cities and fortresses of the Midianites, carried the women and children into captivity, and seized their cattle and goods. God later ordered Moses to have the Israelites slay every Midianite male child and every woman, sparing only the female children." (Numbers 31:2 - 18, the quote is actually from the Wiki article on "Midianites")

And look how he treats the people he supposedly loves: Abraham is ordered to sacrifice his eldest son, Jacob is made to wrestle with an angel, the Israelites end up in bondage in Egypt, after the Exodus they are oppressed at every turn by other peoples. The list is rather long.

In the Old testament, at least, he's not particularly pleasant to people who oppose him or his Chosen People: "The Israelite soldiers set on fire all the cities and fortresses of the Midianites, carried the women and children into captivity, and seized their cattle and goods. God later ordered Moses to have the Israelites slay every Midianite male child and every woman, sparing only the female children." (Numbers 31:2 - 18, the quote is actually from the Wiki article on "Midianites")

And look how he treats the people he supposedly loves: Abraham is ordered to sacrifice his eldest son, Jacob is made to wrestle with an angel, the Israelites end up in bondage in Egypt, after the Exodus they are oppressed at every turn by other peoples. The list is rather long.

Yar. I always found it odd how god was such an asshole in the OT, yet in the NT and all of recorded history, there's no record of him doing such a thing.

It all comes back to a simple point – religion is a security blanket to make people feel better about the universe. If you desperately need to believe that there is a god and that everything happens for a reason, it isn’t such a big deal when bad things happen. It is a simple coping mechanism.

The problem I have with most ‘christians’ is that they don’t actually read the bible – or if they do, they pick and choose which parts to read and which to ignore completely. The god described therein is a complete and total bastard. He is an evil prick doing some pretty nasty things to people. It in no way describes a loving compassionate god. Satan on the other hand, seems to want to give us what we want and wants us to have a pleasurable life. This whole ‘you must suffer’ bit is the real creation of the evil one. That’s right… if the Christian mythos were assumed, the bible is written by the devil to turn people from enjoying god’s creation and to deny ourselves its pleasures. God wanted us to be happy and enjoy life; the devil is the one who twisted the ‘life should be about suffering’ message into it. So Christians – stop reading the bible, it makes you do the devil’s work.

Intuition is not some ‘holy ghost’. It is a very simple instinct developed over the millennia by evolution (oh yeah… sorry… forgot the world is only 3000 years old and evolution is a lie designed to test our faith ). What you learn over the years influences your behavior – even if you can no longer remember what it was, it is still your past expressing itself in the form of intuition. Anyone who has had a bad drinking binge on tequila and can no longer stomach it knows that very well – your body remembers long after you may have forgotten. It is not some mystical spirit of god whispering in your ear (if it were it would have warned you before you got so messed up).

So God is in fact a psychotic dictatorship deity that tortures all who oppose him and will not give an audience until you fully agree with him?

OMG! Bush is god! :eek:

edit: sorry... had to be said, so I figure it might as well have been me

Yeah, but the analogy doesn't fit. I have yet to see an analogy - ANY ANALOGY - that connects with god. Why? Because god is infinite, therefore he has complete control over everything that happens and does not happen, and no human analogy can ever compare to something like that.

Unsurprisingly, I do see the analogy as valid, because I do not agree that differing levels of power is an invalidating difference. This is not to say that I agree with the deist conception of God, of course, just that I think the analogy is valid. Like you, I think the conclusions that follow from the analysis are ludicrous.

But on another note, why do you define God as infinite? You seem to have a remarkably firm God-concept for someone who doesn't believe in God (at least I don't think you do, based on other posts).

That's fine. That's your interpretation of reality.

Your worldview is that the world is in decay.

Mine is that the world is progressing.

May you be more than happy with your viewpoint.

Actually, my view is not that the world is in decay. My view is that it is changing. I'm seeing neither a net increase in good nor a net decrease of good.

Many people have said that, but I refuse to "commit" to that,.. mostly because many people have said that.

My views are what my views are. You can draw a conclusion as to what they are based on yur experience with me.

Fair enough. I'll label your views deistic for convenience' sake.

That's very true.

The thing is, though, that there's no need for us to "clash" on these basic assumptions.

I have no interest in changing your basic assumptions. I'd just like to know what they are,.. and would hope that you'd like to know what mine are, so that we can understand each other better.

It's fun to explicitly discover the absolute incompatabilities in worldviews, so that we can agree to disagree about them, and go on to find things that we CAN agree on so as to make our lives better.

I'd be happy to do so...on another thread where we can specifically discuss our basic assumptions without the distraction of the main topic of the Christian view of suffering.

Unsurprisingly, I do see the analogy as valid, because I do not agree that differing levels of power is an invalidating difference. This is not to say that I agree with the deist conception of God, of course, just that I think the analogy is valid. Like you, I think the conclusions that follow from the analysis are ludicrous.

But on another note, why do you define God as infinite? You seem to have a remarkably firm God-concept for someone who doesn't believe in God (at least I don't think you do, based on other posts).

I am a Deist. ^^

Peace, love, and chill the fuck out, it's what god wants. So yeah, I believe god exists, but that he had almost nothing to do with the bible and definitely nothing to do with the church. He does the godly equivalent of sitting on the couch and watching the earth like a rerun of a good episode of Friends, and when we die, we sit on the couch with him, or get a drink from the fridge, or play scrabble in the dining room - whatever. God's cool about whatever you wanna do. "But what about the insane bastards that kill people?" They go to heaven too - god created them that way for a reason, he's not about to punish them for being what they were created to be.

So yeah. =)

I have a firm god-concept because something that is not infinite cannot have created the universe. If god exists, he is EVERYTHING, because everything would have to be within his power and grasp and control. I cannot concede of there even being a being possibly within the most insane person's head to be more powerful than god, because god created everything and nothing can be more powerful than him, therefore god must be infinite, because I can imagine an infinite being, therefore god must at least be as powerful as whatever I can imagine.

too bad there isn't a /ignore function for threads :eek:

too bad there isn't a /ignore function for threads :eek:

There's one for individual people's posts.

too bad there isn't a /ignore function for threads :eek:

Some threads are like auto accidents, you don't want to look but you can't help it.

I am a Deist. ^^

Now that's interesting.

Peace, love, and chill the fuck out, it's what god wants.

I agree entirely.

So yeah, I believe god exists, but that he had almost nothing to do with the bible and definitely nothing to do with the church.

I think God has a lot to do with all of creation, including the mini-library of inspirational stories so often called the Bible, and churches too.

He does the godly equivalent of sitting on the couch and watching the earth like a rerun of a good episode of Friends, and when we die, we sit on the couch with him, or get a drink from the fridge, or play scrabble in the dining room - whatever. God's cool about whatever you wanna do.

And here of course, is where the deist and theists will inevitably diverge to some degree. :)

I do think God plays a constantly active role in drawing us home to that couch so we can chill with him. I think he's cool like that. :)

"But what about the insane bastards that kill people?" They go to heaven too - god created them that way for a reason, he's not about to punish them for being what they were created to be.

I agree, though for me it's more a result of God's mercy, which is far greater than human mercy.

I have a firm god-concept because something that is not infinite cannot have created the universe. If god exists, he is EVERYTHING, because everything would have to be within his power and grasp and control. I cannot concede of there even being a being possibly within the most insane person's head to be more powerful than god, because god created everything and nothing can be more powerful than him, therefore god must be infinite, because I can imagine an infinite being, therefore god must at least be as powerful as whatever I can imagine.

That's an interesting mix of the good old ontological argument and assertions about the nature of the universe. I don't see the universe as infinite, personally, so there's no need for God to be infinite either. Though I will say that God being infinite can be part of a consistent belief set, which it seems to be for you. Kudos. :)

Now that's interesting.



I agree entirely.



I think God has a lot to do with all of creation, including the mini-library of inspirational stories so often called the Bible, and churches too.



And here of course, is where the deist and theists will inevitably diverge to some degree. :)

I do think God plays a constantly active role in drawing us home to that couch so we can chill with him. I think he's cool like that. :)



I agree, though for me it's more a result of God's mercy, which is far greater than human mercy.



That's an interesting mix of the good old ontological argument and assertions about the nature of the universe. I don't see the universe as infinite, personally, so there's no need for God to be infinite either. Though I will say that God being infinite can be part of a consistent belief set, which it seems to be for you. Kudos. :)

Woot, I get mod kudos.

Basically I think god must be infinite because the mind can concieve of an infinite being, and like I said, I can't imagine us being able to think of anything more powerful than god. Just doesn't make sense to me. That's just me, though.

Bump!

I'm interested in seeing this thread come to a point where the OP and supporters actually continue posting and responding to the questions posed to them.

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

Perhaps they did.

Perhaps they did.

"Fuck it, I quit. They're worshipping an old man with a funny hat, I give up."

Woot, I get mod kudos.

No, you got personal kudos. Even better. :)

No.

Of course, people who don't want to believe there is a God won't listen to what any religious person is saying, so it's best to just ignore 'em.


I WANTED god to be real.

But:REALITY(get re-aquainted with the concept) proves over and over and over again that IF there even is a god, it is either impotent, incompetent, indifferent or cruel.

So, YOU may then "just ignore" me, exacly like the SILENCE of NOTHING THERE that "listens" to your prayers.

I love you. As a fellow christian, of course.

I love you. As a fellow human being, regardless of any religion or lack of it. And I'm not "oficially" Christian. Yet.

All suffering is opportunity to learn (something).

God occassionally gives us a lesson (something to learn) that is "over our heads" (incomprehensible by us as individuals), and this is interpreted as "undeserved suffering".

Is god "wrong" to try to teach us this "incomprehesible" lesson? And who is this lesson actually directed toward? The "victim" or elsewhom?

Your answer to these questions shows your relationship to god as regards "suffering".


And no,.. god never gives up trying to "get through" even to one who won't "listen", because god does not get "fed up".

Why?

Your personal answer to that question points toward any fallacious conceptions about god that you have.


You're entitled to your opinion. Even if it's wrong :P

he or she is right. if you atheists would stop insulting Christians and Jews, you might learn something, reality is a changeable element. who ever said reality disagrees is wrong, a picture won't draw itself. you can believe what you want everyone i don't care. it's your choice.

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine (and by the way, I'm not Baptised or Confirmed yet but soon will be):

I believe that God does NOT leave people to suffer when those people do not deserve that suffering. I am also not saying that most or all people who suffer deserve that suffering.

In the Book of Acts, Peter makes it clear that those who repent and are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38) Many Christians believe that there is only ONE God, made up 3 distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). So when a person is baptised in such a way, they essentially have part of God inside them... but that would affect free will, right? If God controlled the person, then yes. But it doesn't - it just influences, or tries to influence people to take action regarding suffering by way of "funny feelings" or "gut feelings", or even visions. The problem is, too many people have ignored such feelings (how often have you heard someone say, on TV, after a crime has happened, "I felt like I should have stayed with [whoever]" or "I felt like I shouldn't go down there" yet they have ignored the feeling?

So, in short, my view is that God didn't just leave us to get on with things. He left the Holy Ghost with us so that WE could prevent (or prevent and stop) suffering, but not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).

And then, perhaps, because we ignore what the Holy Ghost tells us, the Holy Ghost gets fed up and figures there's no point letting us know any more if we're not going to listen. Just as Jesus did in Mark 8:11-21.

One of the main reasons I don't believe in the Christian God is because He is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful, yet I know I could do a better job than He's doing. And I'm not that bright.

For one thing, I could get rid of about 99% of the suffering human beings inflict on one another without violating free will in the slightest. And I could do it in one move (just give me omnipotence for an instant).

But, according to you, the Christian God would rather blame the victims for getting themselves tortured, abused, raped, killed, and otherwise harmed. He'd rather sit back and passively watch as his "children" suffer, and tell Himself that it's all the kids' fault.

One of my friends had a drunk for a dad who pretty much opperated on the same principle. I'm more likely to worship that drunk than your image of God, because at least I have evidence that the drunk really exists.

One of the main reasons I don't believe in the Christian God is because He is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful, yet I know I could do a better job than He's doing. And I'm not that bright.

For one thing, I could get rid of about 99% of the suffering human beings inflict on one another without violating free will in the slightest. And I could do it in one move (just give me omnipotence for an instant).

But, according to you, the Christian God would rather blame the victims for getting themselves tortured, abused, raped, killed, and otherwise harmed. He'd rather sit back and passively watch as his "children" suffer, and tell Himself that it's all the kids' fault.

One of my friends had a drunk for a dad who pretty much opperated on the same principle. I'm more likely to worship that drunk than your image of God, because at least I have evidence that the drunk really exists.

So what is your move? You know, the one omnipotent one that will fix 99% of human suffering? I'm genuinely curious.

So what is your move? You know, the one omnipotent one that will fix 99% of human suffering? I'm genuinely curious.
Empathy. If there is a Creator-being who made us, then empathy was just about the best idea it came up with. All I'd do is improve on it a bit. Make it so that any pain you visit upon another person will be a pain that you, yourself, experience twice over.

A huge amount of the pain humans cause one another is unthinking or unaware. We don't realize we're hurting somebody, or how much we're hurting them. A lot of the pain we cause is motivated by carelessness or selfishness, because we aren't sufficiently motivated to care about what we're doing or to stop when we know we're hurting somebody. Additional empathy will provide that motivation. It will also remove much of the power motive behind hurting others, since you endure whatever you inflict upon another.

However, humans would still be as free to choose their actions as they are now. If you wanted, you could choose to hurt people, you'd just share in the experience of pain. It's like how you are totally free to poke yourself with a pin right now, you'll just have to accept the pain that is a consequence of that choice. Our free will would not be any less than what it is now.

Now, there will still be some hurt that humans will cause each other, I'm sure. Accidental harm, but perhaps also some intentional cruelty by the few who are twisted enough to still desire it even in the face of "physical empathy." But I think people will learn to be careful much more quickly, and will have sufficient motivation to refrain from most of the cruelty we currently see.

Any diety that leaves things in the shape they are now needs to resign.

On which subject, Mr. George Carlin:

If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of stuff you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. In any well-managed universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago.

Empathy. If there is a Creator-being who made us, then empathy was just about the best idea it came up with. All I'd do is improve on it a bit. Make it so that any pain you visit upon another person will be a pain that you, yourself, experience twice over.

A huge amount of the pain humans cause one another is unthinking or unaware. We don't realize we're hurting somebody, or how much we're hurting them. A lot of the pain we cause is motivated by carelessness or selfishness, because we aren't sufficiently motivated to care about what we're doing or to stop when we know we're hurting somebody. Additional empathy will provide that motivation. It will also remove much of the power motive behind hurting others, since you endure whatever you inflict upon another.

However, humans would still be as free to choose their actions as they are now. If you wanted, you could choose to hurt people, you'd just share in the experience of pain. It's like how you are totally free to poke yourself with a pin right now, you'll just have to accept the pain that is a consequence of that choice. Our free will would not be any less than what it is now.

Now, there will still be some hurt that humans will cause each other, I'm sure. Accidental harm, but perhaps also some intentional cruelty by the few who are twisted enough to still desire it even in the face of "physical empathy." But I think people will learn to be careful much more quickly, and will have sufficient motivation to refrain from most of the cruelty we currently see.

It seems to me that you are essentially just shifting the punishment that most Christians posit occurs after death to make it occur during life.

I'd agree that it could work well, but I just don't see how it's any more fair.

Suffering...

I never was led to believe that earth is heaven. In heaven there is no suffering. On earth we blame God that it's not heaven here and then use that as further "proof" he doesn't exist or is cruel. But if my memory of the Bible serves correctly, I believe it tells of God actually coming here and suffering as well. There will always be suffering on earth regardless of one's faith in God. My faith allows me to know that the suffering is a a minute fraction of eternity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Does it matter whether it was created because "there was nothing better to do that god-day", or whether it was for some "big joo-joo" reason?

The creation was made, period.

Our task is to deal with it. If part of that task is to cogitate over "why creation was created", then we're free to do just that.

Go for it!



Because he knows how the "story" (the creation through time) ends.

Gods job, for whatever reason, was the creation of the creation.

Our job is to be creations in creation.

Have fun with your job.



God does not make anything, other than the creation, and certainly not religions.

Man makes religion (a creation), in response to the "impression" that we humans get about the creator (god) of the creation.



God does not exist to "care", but to have created.

God "cared" enough to create creation, and that is the ultimate "care" of all cares.


You're missing the point. If god created "creation", and we are all simply acting out the motions of "creation", and it is self-sufficient and he is no longer needed, then there is in fact no purpose.

The only NEED for god, after the creation, is that he be recognized.

We are not "simply acting out the motions of creation",.. we are acting within creation as agents with free will.

I don't know what you mean by creation being "self-sufficient". Creation IS self-contained, but not pre-determined, meaning that since part of creation is the creation of agent with free will, there are some things that can't be pre-determined.

So, god is only "needed" as a thing to be recognized as the creator of creation, but that recognition by some of his creations (those with free will) is THE THING that gives the creation any real meaning, because otherwise the creation would be utterly mechanically predetermined.

Those are the "purposes" of god, the creation, and those creations possessing free will.


I refuse to simply say he did such a thing and just leave it at that, stating that to further question the theory is pointless, when in fact it is VERY important because it could possibly nullify the entire thing if it doesn't make sense.

What could "nullify" the creation?

If you accept that the creation exists, then there is nothing that could "nullify" it.

If you accept that god created the creation, then there is nothing that could "nullify" him.


There are other avenues of possibility that make more sense, and it would only be logical to prefer those rather than the one you're suggesting and asserting to.

Everyone will choose the possibility that best suits their purposes.


Also, let's assume you're right. For a second. Hypothetically.

God created creation. This would, invariably, include the birth of humankind, and the publishing of the bible. He created these things within creation. It's no different than if he created it without using the shell of creation to do it for him - he created it, regardless. He made the programming of creation to create these things - he made these things.

God could not have created any one part of creation without creating (all of) CREATION.

He doesn't interfere, except by other of his creations, in the enfolding of creation.

The "hand of god" is always a creation, as only creations can interfere with other creations, and these creations were "initiated" at THE creation.

(( They weren't created, proper, as themselves, at the creation. They were only "initiated". ))


It's the same exact thing. "creation" might as well not exist, because it voids itself out.

If your "creation" (the universe) is in danger of "voiding itself out", then we live in different creations,.. and I don't think that is correct. :)

too bad there isn't a /ignore function for threads :eek:

Simply look away.

What is so difficult about that?

...Well actually, there are quite a few, but here's mine:

<Snip>

not enough people listen to what the Holy Ghost is telling them (and if the ghost forced them to listen, it would be messing around with free will, in which case we might as well all be robots with no ability to think).Do people have free will in Heaven?

Quote (Szanth):
"But what about the insane bastards that kill people?" They go to heaven too - god created them that way for a reason, he's not about to punish them for being what they were created to be.

I agree, though for me it's more a result of God's mercy, which is far greater than human mercy.

The "insane bastards that kill people" don't go to heaven.

The "insane homocidal" aspects of those people are stripped off BY HELL, and the "worthy" aspects of those people then go to heaven.

God created the situation where those people could make choices, and if they chose "evil" then that evil would accrue to them, and require "stripping" at death.

God does not create evil. God created a creation where evil could be chosen, yet won't allow those creatures with free will to "meet him" clothed in any evil, because evil is simply a "misused creation" and god reconciles all mis-appropriations (mis-uses, mis-applications, mis-interpretations, etc).

So, the thousands of children born each day only to die within 24 hours would be saved by baptism?

I WANTED god to be real.

But:REALITY(get re-aquainted with the concept) proves over and over and over again that IF there even is a god, it is either impotent, incompetent, indifferent or cruel.

If you see god as a creature (not the creator) who is there to protect you from the universe, then you're better off without that god.

But that god is not god.


So, YOU may then "just ignore" me, exacly like the SILENCE of NOTHING THERE that "listens" to your prayers.

God's job is not to listen to your thoughts.

His job is to give you the place and the choice to do your job, which is to do what needs doing to make your "prayers" happen that "should" happen.

Voicing your prayers is not talking to god,.. it's talking to those parts of yourself and others that help you do what "should" be done.

God hears us in how we manipulate his creation, not how we vibrate air.

One of the main reasons I don't believe in the Christian God is because He is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful, yet I know I could do a better job than He's doing. And I'm not that bright.

For one thing, I could get rid of about 99% of the suffering human beings inflict on one another without violating free will in the slightest. And I could do it in one move (just give me omnipotence for an instant).

That's why you didn't get the job as god.

I'd REALLY like to see you prove your statement though,.. or even make a halfway decent case for it.


But, according to you, the Christian God would rather blame the victims for getting themselves tortured, abused, raped, killed, and otherwise harmed. He'd rather sit back and passively watch as his "children" suffer, and tell Himself that it's all the kids' fault.

You have a very weird conception of god if that's how you see god.

That is NOT my god, and I'm sorry you have the view that that is my (a christian's) god.


One of my friends had a drunk for a dad who pretty much opperated on the same principle. I'm more likely to worship that drunk than your image of God, because at least I have evidence that the drunk really exists.

If you see your "worship" of god as a choice between various "drunken sadists" then you need a new definition of god.

What WOULD your definition of a "worthy" god be?

Instead of seeing the choices you are offered by others, and at least partially misinterpreting due to your own "prejudices" about religion, why not try to "create" (find) a god that you could usefully relate to?

I suspect that's what you are doing, and probably somewhat successfully, but instead of bashing your misconception of other's god, you might share your own findings and see where you agree and disagree with other's conceptions in the spirit of assisting, instead of denigrating.


(( It's just my observation that you would rather tell everyone how EVIL the christian god is than how GOOD yours is. You DO have a god, by the way,.. you may just call your god something other than god. ))

On which subject, Mr. George Carlin:

My favorite Carlin quote on religion: I've begun worshipping the Sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the Sun. It's there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There's no mystery, no one asks for money, I don't have to dress up, and there's no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
So what is your move? You know, the one omnipotent one that will fix 99% of human suffering? I'm genuinely curious.

Empathy. If there is a Creator-being who made us, then empathy was just about the best idea it came up with. All I'd do is improve on it a bit. Make it so that any pain you visit upon another person will be a pain that you, yourself, experience twice over.

That would be clever! :)

But that would violate free will.

The fact is that those who recognize the true god ARE vistited upon by multiples of pain of those pains they visit upon others.

"Mechanizing" empathy would create a static world, as to "mechanize" any emotion would have to be "programmed into" all lifeforms, and that "programming" would have (among other things) precluded animals killing and eating each other, with very bizarre evlutionary consequences.

If it's not a reality in god's creation, then it's simply not REAL, and wishing won't make it so,.. even if you know better than the creator.


A huge amount of the pain humans cause one another is unthinking or unaware. We don't realize we're hurting somebody, or how much we're hurting them. A lot of the pain we cause is motivated by carelessness or selfishness, because we aren't sufficiently motivated to care about what we're doing or to stop when we know we're hurting somebody. Additional empathy will provide that motivation. It will also remove much of the power motive behind hurting others, since you endure whatever you inflict upon another.

However, humans would still be as free to choose their actions as they are now. If you wanted, you could choose to hurt people, you'd just share in the experience of pain. It's like how you are totally free to poke yourself with a pin right now, you'll just have to accept the pain that is a consequence of that choice. Our free will would not be any less than what it is now.

That "MIGHT" be true, of humans, but not of other lifeforms.

God doesn't make one set of "primal" rules for one life form and others for other lifeforms.

( By "primal" I mean "at the physics level". )

Your basic premise is that god can purposefully interfere in his creation, as a creation, after the creation, which is an impossibility.

You may disagree, but we'll just have to wait for god to make this change of yours to prove either of us right or wrong.

(( You'll probably say that this is actually a PROOF that god doesn't exist, because if he did it would be an obvious betterment, so if he doesn't make this change it can only be because he doesn't exist!

But what if it's NOT a betterment, contrary to your opinion?

God trumps people. ))


Now, there will still be some hurt that humans will cause each other, I'm sure. Accidental harm, but perhaps also some intentional cruelty by the few who are twisted enough to still desire it even in the face of "physical empathy." But I think people will learn to be careful much more quickly, and will have sufficient motivation to refrain from most of the cruelty we currently see.

Perhaps this is what our present condition actually is?

Perhaps we've just "learned" to blunt our empathy?

Perhaps that is what god is for? To help us recognize, to give us a reason to RETURN to being more fully empathetic?

Perhaps people who have no god are the culprits of dis-empathy,.. that they are the perpetrators of unwarranted suffering?

My opinion is that this is the case.

Those people who have great quantities of empathy ARE those with a realization of god, whether they call the source of their empathy god or not.

So, the thousands of children born each day only to die within 24 hours would be saved by baptism?

Uh,.. what do you mean by "saved"?

Do you mean "not allowed to die"? They would still die.

Do you mean "not having physically suffered pain"? They would have still physically suffered pain.

What do you mean by "saved"?

The children would gain only the benefits of baptism that they are "equipped" to receive.

What are they equipped to receive? I don't know, but very likely very little.

But the parents of those children, if the rite of baptism meant something to them, are equipped to receive MUCH more benefit from the children's baptisms, and would receive it.


So,.. once again,.. what do you mean by "saved"?

I think you answered my question just fine.

The "insane bastards that kill people" don't go to heaven.

The "insane homocidal" aspects of those people are stripped off BY HELL, and the "worthy" aspects of those people then go to heaven.

The healing process does often feel like hell because we have trouble detaching ourselves from our bad habits, but it's hardly the eternal torment of Hell, and in my view that process is something available to all of us because of God's mercy. Catholics have an interesting symbol for this process. It's called Purgatory.

God created the situation where those people could make choices, and if they chose "evil" then that evil would accrue to them, and require "stripping" at death.

God does not create evil. God created a creation where evil could be chosen, yet won't allow those creatures with free will to "meet him" clothed in any evil, because evil is simply a "misused creation" and god reconciles all mis-appropriations (mis-uses, mis-applications, mis-interpretations, etc).

A bit simplistic, but I tend to agree.

"If god wishes to stop evil, but he can't do it, he is not almighty. If god can stop evil, but he doesn't want to, he is malicious. If he can stop the evil and wants to stop it, where is the evil coming from? If he can't nor wish to stop evil, why to call him a god?" -Epikuros

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
The "insane bastards that kill people" don't go to heaven.

The "insane homocidal" aspects of those people are stripped off BY HELL, and the "worthy" aspects of those people then go to heaven.


The healing process does often feel like hell because we have trouble detaching ourselves from our bad habits, but it's hardly the eternal torment of Hell, and in my view that process is something available to all of us because of God's mercy. Catholics have an interesting symbol for this process. It's called Purgatory.

Hell is about the torment that a consciousness suffers while it identifies itself as a particular cluster of characteristics, and the ETERNAL aspect of hell is the ETERNITY that the consciousness suffers AS that cluster of characteristics when it realizes that those characteristics are not truly itself.

In other words, it seems like forever that the "evil aspects" suffer because they never admit that they will die (be stripped away) and would rather extend time into infinity than "die" and be burned away.

The evil burns but is not consumed, because it has control of time in refusing to change.

The consciouness that has it's evil burned away (in hell) comes to realize that it needs to "give up" what it thought was "integral to itself" (it's evil aspects) and is freed into heaven.

Thus, both the eternity of hell, and the redemption of the soul is explained.


Quote:
God created the situation where those people could make choices, and if they chose "evil" then that evil would accrue to them, and require "stripping" at death.

God does not create evil. God created a creation where evil could be chosen, yet won't allow those creatures with free will to "meet him" clothed in any evil, because evil is simply a "misused creation" and god reconciles all mis-appropriations (mis-uses, mis-applications, mis-interpretations, etc).


A bit simplistic, but I tend to agree.

I'm a very VERY simple person. :)

Hell is about the torment that a consciousness suffers while it identifies itself as a particular cluster of characteristics, and the ETERNAL aspect of hell is the ETERNITY that the consciousness suffers AS that cluster of characteristics when it realizes that those characteristics are not truly itself.

In other words, it seems like forever that the "evil aspects" suffer because they never admit that they will die (be stripped away) and would rather extend time into infinity than "die" and be burned away.

The evil burns but is not consumed, because it has control of time in refusing to change.

The consciouness that has it's evil burned away (in hell) comes to realize that it needs to "give up" what it thought was "integral to itself" (it's evil aspects) and is freed into heaven.

Thus, both the eternity of hell, and the redemption of the soul is explained.

I'm a very VERY simple person. :)

I don't agree with your explanation, but I do appreciate its consistency. In any case, I have to get to class now. Perhaps I'll be able to explain my view more later if the papers I have to write don't take up too much time.

"If god wishes to stop evil, but he can't do it, he is not almighty.

Evil is not a thing, but a disuse, and to remove the possibility of disuse is to remove free will, which he can't do, as it would invalidate all of creation.


If god can stop evil, but he doesn't want to, he is malicious.

God can not "stop evil", as stated above.


If he can stop the evil and wants to stop it, where is the evil coming from?

God can not "stop evil", again, as above, and evil is a necessary consequence of the gift of free will.


If he can't nor wish to stop evil, why to call him a god?" -Epikuros

What you would have god do, only a creature can do, and to call a creature "god" is to REALLY mess yourself, and your society, up.


You are free to call anything (any creation) god.

To do so, though, is to create growing evil, because it is the ultimate mis-use of that creation, and by implication, all creation.


He who would have god act as if he were a creature wishes to have a fellow creature with ultimate power.

He wants an all powerful ally.

He wants a god who would be tyrant, but a tyrant who protects him and empowers him.

He truly wants to BE an ultimate tyrant.

Thus,.. to want Epikuros's negative description of god is to want to be this tyrant.

That Epikuros uses the extreme evil to disprove that this tyranical god exists, is the wisdom of Epikuros.

He proves that god is not as most see him.

And he's right. But he doesn't say what god IS like.

That's my job. (..and yours, if you're wise!)