Is it ignorant to judge and condemn God?

[rossum]

I am not very familiar with Buddhism. Can you provides some quotes from the religion or an exposition?

See Buddhism in a Nutshell.

Do Buddhist believe a God exists?

There are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scriptures. Believing in any or all of them is optional.

For their hardness of heart, God had to approach and deal with them as He did. When they were ready to receive the Messiah He came.

You are free to compare the number of times the Buddha got angry with the number of times Jesus got angry. As to people being ready, the Buddha lived before Jesus.

The only basis is pure ignorance.

You would do well to look at the moral rules of Buddhism before dismissing them as “ignorance”. You have admitted your own ignorance at the start of this post. “An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

rossum

 

[hasantas]

Is it ignorant to judge and condemn God? It would seem to be common sense that to do so is ignorant.

How would you tackle this mode of thinking:

Only an evil God would create hell and condemn people to it for all eternity. Even if the best for human beings is to live eternally in his presence - I don’t want to. I don’t want to live with a God that sends people to hell. As far as I am concerned, he does not exist. I much rather go to hell than to be with him. I am sick and tired of feeling guilty. I had it. The Catholic Church is a guilt religion and I am tired of feeling guilty and fearing eternal damnation. God can keep his church and his heaven. I will live my life out as best I can; free from God and his church.

This mode of thinking to me is a judgement and condemnation of God. God has been judged and found guilty - guilty of being an evil God.

Firstly Hell is not an eternal suffering place but is an eternal prison. People will not suffer in Hell for everlasting but they will suffer as much they had commited sins. After that they will become familiar with pains and will not suffer any more. But penalty of staying in Hell for endless is the rejection of God.

And even staying in Hell eternally is not evil. When a guilty man get into prison he does not think to die although if he had life sentence. To stay in existence is more good than being dissolve actualy. Every soul wish to live and stay for ever. The biggest penalty is the being vanished for a soul and God do not destroy any soul which He created. God is not evil but God is good in every manner.

Ofcourse you know human has free will to perceive good and evil…

You have great mercy like Abu Bakr. He had said that “O God! Enlarge my body as much as to crowd and close Hell not any one else could get in it”

 

[Richca]

Is it ignorant to judge and condemn God? It would seem to be common sense that to do so is ignorant.

How would you tackle this mode of thinking:

Only an evil God would create hell and condemn people to it for all eternity. Even if the best for human beings is to live eternally in his presence - I don’t want to. I don’t want to live with a God that sends people to hell. As far as I am concerned, he does not exist. I much rather go to hell than to be with him. I am sick and tired of feeling guilty. I had it. The Catholic Church is a guilt religion and I am tired of feeling guilty and fearing eternal damnation. God can keep his church and his heaven. I will live my life out as best I can; free from God and his church.

This mode of thinking to me is a judgement and condemnation of God. God has been judged and found guilty - guilty of being an evil God.

Well, according to this mode of thinking, we shouldn’t have any courts of law and justice in society or prisons for criminals. For example, according to this way of thinking, I suppose a father of an 8 year old daughter who is kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered thinks its okay or doesn’t care if this happens to his daughter, and doesn’t mind living alongside this criminal without the criminal suffering any punishment or consequences for his acts. Now, such a father in the eyes of sane, loving and reasonable people is no father at all and is himself a criminal.

 

[Wesrock]

God is not a being within the universe available for judgment. He is infinite and pure existence. He is not a being within the universe, or even comparable to the universe as a whole. Each and every other being has limited existence and is in a state of mixed act and potential, but God is unlimited and entirely in act. He does not have moral obligations and duties that humans do, because to have obligations and duties implies an unfulfilled potential that must be worked towards.

Those who judge God do so by lowering him down to some spiritual superhuman. He is anthropomorphized and held to human expectations and definitions. Good is abscribed to him as an adjective, when he is pure goodness itself. And this goodness is not human goodness, but only analogical to it.

 

[rossum]

God is not a being within the universe available for judgment.

That depends on how you define “universe”. If it is just the material universe of science, then He is outside it. If it is the universe of philosophy, “the universe is all that exists,” then He is inside the universe, since He exists.

All religious people agree that there is more to the universe than just the space/time/energy/matter universe of science.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

That depends on how you define “universe”. If it is just the material universe of science, then He is outside it. If it is the universe of philosophy, “the universe is all that exists,” then He is inside the universe, since He exists.

All religious people agree that there is more to the universe than just the space/time/energy/matter universe of science.

rossum

That is an anthropomorphic idea of God. The Judaic concept “He Who Is” is still valid because neither the universe nor spiritual reality explain themselves nor do they satisfy the principle of economy. Monism is superior to pluralism or nihilism…

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

My favorite professor, may he rest in peace, wrote a book on anger. I always found it peculiar that he should have picked that topic to research and write on. He was a philosopher theologian. This morning for the first time - it interests me very much. I am going to see if I can get a hold of a copy and read it.

We can address the issue spiritually but I think we can also address the issue from a psychological perspective. There seems to be degrees and stages that lead to an obstinate state of mind (that does not compute - that does not compute) with an anger base that is directed at God.

We have to empathise with others’ need to dialogue with God - however “fierily” - and not know what is the underlying motive for that need - maybe a suffering they are not comfortable telling us about, certainly traumas they have witnessed or learned about. We can’t judge how obstinate their heart is. (Almost certainly less so than they may claim.)

It is not appropriate to try to “meet the argument head-to-head” in order to “win” it. Jesus would use lateral thinking, would be the answer rather than give it, maybe by giving the person space and time, certainly by praying, cheerful, moved rather than afraid for His reputation.