Why is God so mean?

[Charlemagne_II]

Detales

*Yes, Charlie, that is the response of “unexamined pious faith.” You might get your answer if you go back and re-read the post? *

Sorry, but I just can’t decipher your prose. And I seriously doubt that it’s because I’ve built up barriers sufficient to resist 26 readings.

Pax.

 

[Detales]

“Think, Athur; THINK!” ~ Merlin

 

[PJM]

=anEvilAtheist;5367505]No, I never argued that it did. I never claimed to have any proof that God is cruel. I have merely been arguing that God could prevent the suffering caused by natural disasters if he had so desired.

Agreed, but why does God opt not to?

 

[Detales]

Why in the name of God, do you think God opts or doesn’t opt??? There is the source of your alleged meanness!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Agreed, but why does God opt not to?

I don’t know. What do you think?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

God knows us better than we know ourselves. Only He knows what is truly right and good for us. We may not understand it, we might even think of it as “mean”. But, in the end, it is Love.

 

[Detales]

Charlemagne,

"The Church, it seems to me, Aftrer 50-odd years of considering the matter, scholasitically and through prayer and meditation devotes itself to the propagation of an artificial way of keeping God at arms length It has, by misinterpreting the words and intents of Jesus–as far as I can tell–created a belief system that diverts the mind away from what I have come to understand as a more correct understanding of even absolutley genuine insight by using an actual Teacher Jesus and his self appointed ad-man, Paul, who only knew “Jesus” as a revelation that he may have interpreted through his own lens, as is common with visons as unwitting props in a power play. Jesus as an interactive Presence, in the the same sense that He was during his incarnate days, was not available as a stabalizing force on the institutional growth of the Church. All claims of Divine Guidance realtive to this are self-referential within the Church and worthy of critical analysis (see early Church history) Go and study early chuch history through ubiased sources, refraining from the pious indictment that ALL scholars who question the specific interpretations of the Church are either necessarily anti-Catholic or agents of the devil. What if they are just sincere and competent scholars??? The destruction is incalculable, in terms of people who are trained into a “metaphysical” system that distorts their understanding of incarnation, redemption, resurrection and salvation but imaginary, since such consequences are mostly mental, not affecting the actual nature of the Soul as well, so ultimately it matters little if any. The story of the star fish on the beach applies here.The story I mistakenly thought everyone knew, of the person walking on the beach throwing an occasional star fish back into the sea from the thousands washed on shore. Somone asked “Why are you throwing those back in the ocean? Look at the ones that are left. It makes no difference!” The reply was, “It makes a difference for the ones that were thrown back in.” The star fish on the beach are the thousands of Catholics beached by means of their piety. A few might yet get back into an environment where they might enjoy their continued growth.

 

[PJM]

anEvilAtheist

from post # 450. you said:

I have merely been arguing that God could prevent the suffering caused by natural disasters if he had so desired.

I guess I’ll have to rephrase my question, which perhaps wasn’t clearly enough stated, because your answer seems not to be responsive to the point I was trying to make.

All of us die. For all of us that is a kind of “natural” disaster. So do you think only a cruel God would make all of us die (whether by tsunami or in our bed) when he could have made all of us to live forever?

The ***precise purpose that God made us is so that we can and do live forever, not in this world of testing by trials, but in His very Presence, a perfect Utopia od joy, peace and love.

Some folks simply refuse the opportunity and don’t want to pay the price of admission.***

 

[Detales]

But “they” get there nevertheless, “Utopia” and “they” being somewhat of misnomers, as is “heaven,” since those most often carry overtones of place and time, both ultimately incomplete and inadequate attributions.

Two quotes from Nisargadatta, edited, as he wasn't a  speaker of English, and there are dynamics in his language relative to existance that English either lacks or obscures. This is why English, Latin, and Greek translations discount and ignore many crucial nuances inherent in Aramaic and Middle Eastern languages. This goes double and triple for the Teaching mode of those languages.* How good, or how accurate, are the result we may then have through faulty translation, especially of the Identity statements of Jesus? 

"Realization [Heaven, Redemption, Salvation, Beatific Vision] is of the fact that you are not (primarily) a person."

"[Identification with a] personal entity and enlightenment [Heaven, Salvation, Beatific Vision] cannot go together."


* See Maurice Nicol's *The New Man* for a particularly readable and illustrative treatment of this discrepancy as applied to the parables and miracles of Jesus, And, of course, remember Mark 4:33.34, if you believe in the Bible.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s a reflex action, which means we do not consciously decide to react in that way. So instead of causing our body to instinctively pull away and causing pain, God could have merely made us instinctively pull away. Since this is not an action we decide to do before we do it, there’s no reason for pain. If we have a robot-like reaction and consciously feel pain, there is no need for the conscious feeling of pain.

Your proposal amounts to denying the need for pain in any form whatsoever. The idea of a pain-free world is attractive but is it feasible? Hume argued that a diminution of pleasure would do the job equally well. The problem is that diminutions of pleasure would have to be graduated according to the degree of danger. Pain is a warning and warnings have to vary according to the amount of harm that will result if they are ignored. So diminutions of pleasure would have to vary from very small to very large, but surely the contrast between great pleasure and very little pleasure would be painful!

It is unrealistic to demand a world with the advantages of this world and without its corresponding disadvantages. It is asking for health without disease, life without death, normality without abnormality, progress without regress, satisfaction without dissatisfaction, joy without sorrow and success without failure. It needs to be demonstrated that such a world is not self-contradictory…

 

[Detales]

Indeed, “diminuation of pleasure” could easily fit the catagory of “pain.” The senses are, taken as a whole, navigatonal instruments in the 4-D world. There are kinds and degrees of pain, both of the sense of touch and of the feeling of being a person, that inform us as to the state of our condition relative to the environments we navigate, both internal and external, those finally being an artificial distinction.

In no case do the senses or environmental factors impinging on them, have anything to do with an act of God “outside” the person or the environments, or “inside” them, those distinctions also ultimately being artifical and ad hoc, however practical. God and Creation are of a Piece, NOW*, ever so and ever will be, misaprehended by our narrow focus on human subject/object relative awareness.

This practical, but very limited mode of awareness, serves us in navigating our incarnate experience, but does nothing but provide signposts to to the alert to the dimension that allows direct perception of the Soul’s propensities. In that direct perception the “Peace that passeth understandig” is known, and the matter of these questions and the dynamics of the Church that sposors their arisal tend to fade out. The entire origin and need for our or any Church is seen in a rather different, disambiguated light. Then pain can be seen for what it is, and the suffering most usually associated with it is largely mitigated, as the mind, being alligned with Reality, has greatly reduced need to calculate the consequences of pain in emotional terms.

*“now” as applies to God, Heavan, and Eternality has no component of duration. Thanks again to the ambiguities of English, we have support of imaginary dynamics metaphysically impossible.

 

[Detales]

JK,

I was just glancing through my copy of F. Merrell-Wollff’s The Philosophy of… This copy is annotated by my Mentor, Dr. KG Mills, the noted metaphysician. I just saw footnote 10 for chapter 5 in that book. It made me think, again, of you and your situation.

Footnote 10 reads: “The assurance of the transcendental states is by no means a certainty that the conceptual interpretation is the most correct possible. Interpretation is a relative function subject to criticism.”

So, again, One or I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, a final say in what is happening in such a dynamic as you and we have experienced. We, speaking for myself, have only to offer that the kind of realization you have had is older and more widely spread by far than the Church has years, members, coverage, or accounting for. The extensive literature on this kind of realization is also far more inclusive and detailed than any available through the Church as far as its public teaching aspect, as far as I could doggedly determine. It is for these reasons that you have been invited, as somone who has had a rare but known expreience, to consider that there may be more to your insight than you are now giving it credit for, or are attributing to it.

Blessings and Best,

Bindar

 

[PJM]

=Detales;5374354]Why in the name of God, do you think God opts or doesn’t opt??? There is the source of your alleged meanness!

So you are saying that God is mean? And the cause of God’s meanness is the application of God’s perfect Justice and fairness? Or are you saying God can be just, but not mean?

Some few years ago, a priest mentor who held many advanced degrees got on my case for not sharing our Catholic Faith.

My excuse was that I am only an HS graduate. His response was, “you can read and write can’t you?” I replied yes. So then he challenged me and guided me over a period of years to learn not only what we believe, but as importantly, why we believe it.

Father often said that as a college professor, he often met students or faculty members "smarter than me"and quickly added, but intelligence without common sense, is useless. Many super intellectuals are too smart to be logical, too smart to have and apply common sense.

I have come to learn the wisdom of this astute and perceptive understanding. Anyone, who denies the reality of God, is simply too smart and lacking commonsense.

I sincerely thank God for not making me too smart t:thumbsup:

 

[erikd]

If God is Good and God is Love then how can God be so mean?

For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
John 16:27

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
John 3:16

But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time,
Christ died for us; much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:8-9

But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
1 Corinthians 2:9

I could go on and on but what’s the point. If you, as a child, did not receive punishment or something pertaining to pain or suffering, you would grow up incapable of dealing with adult society. Pain happens through all walks of life, right from the moment of birth until the moment of death. Pain is present in all parts of our lives and should be embraced as a form of strengthening. Natural disasters, for instance, bring out the best in people, just ask the Red Cross how much their donations increase after a natural or unnatural disaster. This has nothing to do with God being mean, because as Scripture rightly tells us God is Love. When a parent reprimands a child is love present or is hate present? The answer is obvious. Embrace that which you fear and you will grow.

God Bless

 

[PJM]

For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.
John 16:27

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
John 3:16

But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as yet we were sinners, according to the time,
Christ died for us; much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him.
Romans 5:8-9

But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
1 Corinthians 2:9

I could go on and on but what’s the point. If you, as a child, did not receive punishment or something pertaining to pain or suffering, you would grow up incapable of dealing with adult society. Pain happens through all walks of life, right from the moment of birth until the moment of death. Pain is present in all parts of our lives and should be embraced as a form of strengthening. Natural disasters, for instance, bring out the best in people, just ask the Red Cross how much their donations increase after a natural or unnatural disaster. This has nothing to do with God being mean, because as Scripture rightly tells us God is Love. When a parent reprimands a child is love present or is hate present? The answer is obvious. Embrace that which you fear and you will grow.

God Bless

***Thank you, well done.

You get it!***

 

[Detales]

No, PJM, I am saying that God isn’t in the realm of being mean or not mean; so the question is, in practice, irrelevant. People may read OT scriptures and say “that is a mean god, to act that way.” But I don’t believe that the OT delineation of god is about God. I don’t know what it is about, possibly what those folks conjured up out of necessity to be a god. Or it was their misinterpretation of what they had been told about God by those who had actually seen. Please read my note to JK above regarding that dynamic. And, as always, how accurate can an interpretation be of the infinitude of Being, especially by someone who is otherwise stuck in a subject/object awareness?

Please remember, religions are about God/god, and usually are lines of explication or exegesis made by those who are speculating on the experience of the original Realizer. No matter how clear the words were of the original Realizer, they could not necessarily engender the actual experience in the life of the listeners. They might engender a practice or a belief (hello!) but not the experience. If someone had a subsequent realization, then they have different ears to listen with than the ordinary faithful. Remember as well Mark 4:33,34.

As to spreading the faith, I would rather spread good than faith. The good that missionaries of any faith or political system have done lives after them. Their faith or belief has in many case destroyed lives, if not entire cultures that had valuable experiential maps of the human heart and awareness. I’m sure that the Amerind tribe whose hands were cut off by Columbus were happy to receive the Christian God. K of C, indeed!

As for intelligence and common sense, of course you are right. It does not take a particular kind or degree of intelligence to realize, as far as I know. It has to do with Grace. In the Church it is called in one of its forms Sanctifying Grace.

But as far as you spreading the faith, I think it is wonderful for you that you are doing it. My sister is a Mormon. I have had many opportunities to listen to the adventures of their returning missionaries, a nephew included. I am amazed at the stories they tell, the encounters they have had, and the maturity they have gained. Have they been spreading the Word of God? What do you think, PJM? Were they? Yet, they did what they did completely convinced that that is what they were doing. My sister was a Moonie. Were they spreading the Word of Gog? What do you think? Were they convinced they were? You can bet on it. So do your work, grow in maturity, and learn about yourself. Do so with all the energy you can muster. It may be your only way through belief. God as IS is not a matter of belief or of religion or of philosophy. God as God simply IS ALL, and we call it All knowing, All Present, All whatever. But that is for us. It touches not nor describes God, though for the sincere it may point that way.

Is faith fruitless? NO! It has great value if it is in the hands and practice of someone who is on another level good. They may use their religion as a necessary ad hoc explanation of why they are Good, and if they continue in that Good they will discover a God they never imagined. But it will be because they were Good, virtuous, and ardent, not because they were religious, however sincere.

Sincerity, like Charity, covers a multitude of evils and errors. It is why we love children and forgive puppies. I admire it in everyone who has it, as I admire you, greatly, in that virtue. So, just love, and spread good, and the gospel if you feel it necessary, but remember that actions are louder than words. Is saving a drowning man a Catholic act? Is giving food or goods to the needy a Catholic act? Is being there for the sick and dying a Catholic act? If it was, only Catholics would do those things. Yet, they are common in the world over time and space. Why is that? What is non-Catholic, yet good and Universal? Why would you necessarily want the good I do to be a Catholic good, thus removing it from the context of the Universal body of all those who have done Good, simply because they Loved? Isn’t that where religions get divisive and meanness ensues? Perhaps this is why some people feel that god, or a god is mean.

I mean, think about it. Are you against childhood? Of course not. Did you do anything to “destroy” your own? No.What happened? You naturally and rightfully did what your life brought you to grow into maturity. But what if say at 5th grade someone said "This way and level of knowing is the one, true and only way. The principle of the school has said so and he and his staff have researched the way of our school. Accept that or suffer forever!’ hmmm… I wonder if…

Am I against Catholicism? NO! I am for maturity, sanity, critical thinking, and considering the significance of one’s experience and being. That ought, I think, be done in the widest, deepest ways possible, in order to invite Grace, or as I call it now, Realization. It is in this regard that I continue to offer sources and make connections so that all whom I contact might have what I can give them as an opportunity to reduce the limits habit and ignorance place on the experience of Soul. My fear is that what I do sometimes entrenches people further into their religion, and I ask forgiveness for that. Am I being a missionary? Perhaps some may think so. But I have no agenda as to what someone might discover as a result of their own inquiry. I only know that it will be wonder-ful. I am not asking anyone, either, to believe what I say or anything about it, or that thy ought use belief as a means. No. I only wish everyone to deeply engage an inner quest beyond belief, to discover (K)nowledge.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[Darryl1958]

If God is Good and God is Love then how can God be so mean?

To paraphrase, those who love their life with lose it, and those who hate their life with be given eternal life in heaven with the father
It is good then that the world is designed to be so intrinsically detestable, in order that we may turn away from this life and toward life with a loving God in heaven.

 

[Detales]

Darryl, I feel for you. It sounds like for some reason life is a horror for you. I am sorry if this is the case, and you are in my prayers.

But if that is how life is for you, it may not be for others. I myself am an artist, and I am having somewhat of a difficult time these days, given my age and the labor market. But I guess I have been more fortunate than you. To me, life and the world, and the Universe are God’s infinite canvas, through all that we see, and through all the greater part we don’t see. When I look at anything in Nature, I feel the love of God caressing my senses. When I see the stars, I am pulled out of myself with wonder at the infinite Glory of God. When I talk with my friends or my family, I feel that God has given them life, and I am priveliged to watch and feel it unfold as part of mine. For all I know, God speaks to me through them. And when life ends, as I have seen it do, I weep and I rejoice, for I am witnessing the freedom from limits, as well as loosing someone significant in my own life.

But we are here, in my sense of it, not to be propelled away from God’s own creation by the loathing of it in this form, but by way of anxious and joyful preparation of aquaintance. The world is God’s gift to me, that I may know God in the fullness of my ability. My gift to God, as it would be to anyone I cared about, is to know as much as intimately as I possibly can, given the time I have with them and their willingness to share. I can only do this now by recieving the gift of Creation as expression of the Word. God has given us ALL. We are all created in God’s image and likeness, even if we don’t know it.

I choose to revel in the gifts that have been given to me as the cornucopia of daily experience. I may not like it all, but I learn from all of it. And what I am learning is the infinitude of God’s Love, When I go through the last gate, I intend to be doing it like fireworks of gratitude, with music and dancing and singing of praise, weeping with joy, saying “I have recieved all this from the infinite fountain of Your Love, and now I give it back, embellished and festooned with my appreciation. Thank You, Thank You, Thank you!!!”

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sorry for the delay in my response.

Parting the Red Sea (and other seas) - if it occurred - and calming the waters were very rare if not unique events strictly circumscribed in time and space. That is vastly different from doing so whenever and wherever people are in danger.

By “too agitated” I understand you to mean “not agitated enough to cause a disaster” which is equivalent to “the water level never rises and falls so much and so quickly that it kills many people”. An indeterminate number of people would presumably still be killed by water but it would be fewer than the present number. It would be common knowledge all over the world that it is safer to be on water than on land, in the air or underground. So the same problem of a benevolent law of nature would arise unless the other disasters are also eliminated. But this would have the same effect of creating two classes of laws: benevolent and neutral.

I was saying that it would be set up so that hurricanes and tsunamis did not occur. It would not depend on whether or not there would be humans in their path. And no, the sea would not be abnormally safer. Think about an open field. Assuming it’s not by a fault line or in the middle of tornado country, there wouldn’t be that much risk. The same would hold in the oceans. But there would still be some risk, for example lightning strikes could still occur.

All this is assuming that this new property of water is compatible not only with the existing properties of water but also with the law of gravitation, the laws of motion and other physical laws.To modify the properties of water would entail imposing limits on the effect of the wind and the moon on the sea and the temperature at which water freezes and evaporates amongst many other factors.

No, it would be just like a perpetual miracle.

As far as I can see it is impossible to make such a change in the movement of the sea in isolation from the surrounding elements. That such a project is feasible is a speculative hypothesis for which there is no evidence and it certainly needs to be established experimentally.

No, it does not have to be “established experimentally”. We would not need to make an experiment in which humans were transformed into rabbits in order to show that it would be possible for an all powerful wish-granting genie to turn me into a rabbit. Similarly with God, you are imposing on God the restrictions of his laws. Just like parents do not have to follow the rules they set for their children, an omnipotent God is not limited by the laws of nature (he can perform miracles), and if he had wanted them to be different, he could have.

Your proposal is that there are new sets of laws preventing disasters because it would be illogical to confine the changes to hurricanes or tsunamis. It is necessary to explain in what respects your proposal is not so naïve.

Well yes, I think that there are other natural disasters that God could also prevent, but we agreed to focus on these water disasters. If God can prevent any suffering and doesn’t, then I think you have to say that God is evil unless a greater good comes of it (assuming that for God to be good, he cannot inflict suffering for no reason). There are a wide variety of possible explanations for this greater good, but our current argument is over whether he can reduce the total number of natural disasters.

It is not a question of God being limited to the number of times he can perform a miracle but of the world becoming predictably benevolent in certain circumstances.

I do not think it would be a bad thing to live in a benevolent world. But I don’t think that merely not knowing about hurricanes and tsunamis would make the world predictably benevolent (and you might want to explain what you mean by this).

The suspension of the laws of nature on a few occasions is a totally different matter from suspending them on every occasion.
Stopping a clock for a few minutes does not affect life radically but to stop it for a few minutes repeatedly has drastic effects.
To stop water flowing for an hour on one occasion hardly interferes with the sea but to do so repeatedly must affect the distribution of water unless its properties are changed permanently.

Okay, but God could change its properties so it behaved the same except for this one difference. And regardless, what is the harm that would be caused by God containing the water?

I have acknowledged that God could have prevented all natural disasters but with devastating consequences for a rational, independent existence.

Could you explain in a little more detail what you think those devastating consequences would be?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Your proposal amounts to denying the need for pain in any form whatsoever. The idea of a pain-free world is attractive but is it feasible? Hume argued that a diminution of pleasure would do the job equally well. The problem is that diminutions of pleasure would have to be graduated according to the degree of danger. Pain is a warning and warnings have to vary according to the amount of harm that will result if they are ignored. So diminutions of pleasure would have to vary from very small to very large, but surely the contrast between great pleasure and very little pleasure would be painful!

It is unrealistic to demand a world with the advantages of this world and without its corresponding disadvantages. It is asking for health without disease, life without death, normality without abnormality, progress without regress, satisfaction without dissatisfaction, joy without sorrow and success without failure. It needs to be demonstrated that such a world is not self-contradictory…

Remember, we were discussing this in relation to animal suffering (setting aside humans). I do not believe that animals would need to feel pain. There are certain instincts that animals are born with. For example, animals instinctively pull away when they touch something very hot. God could have easily given animals these involuntary actions without the associated pain.