E
estesbob
Guest
Remidsa me of the best description of an agnostic I ever heard" swears there aint no heaven, prays their aint no hell"
- Status
D
Detales
Guest
Oreo, you mistake me. I have no problem with you being Catholic. Hi. Me too. I have a problem though with the inability of people who don’t see that I’m not offering a Gnostic argument. The ease with which my post is put under that label is too much like Teflon. You know, no-stick. If you read more carefully,* that slipperyness is more of what my posts are about. You have not given yourselves even one percent ot the credit your actual untried perceptual abitliy deserves, so I have answered at the level of your responses. If I’m aflame with anything, perhaps in part it is curiousity about PJM’s touted bullseye. Maybe I’m not so smart either, lol!
But I am deadly serious in my conviction that you have not yet looked at right angles to your normal perceptions. How bigoted is such facile dismissal? I don’t care. My wish is, as you have read, (or not, yet) that you discern the meaning of your experience beyond your thoughts about it in regards to this thread and the rest of your experience.
But I am deadly serious in my conviction that you have not yet looked at right angles to your normal perceptions. How bigoted is such facile dismissal? I don’t care. My wish is, as you have read, (or not, yet) that you discern the meaning of your experience beyond your thoughts about it in regards to this thread and the rest of your experience.
Code:
*You folks remind me of a man I knew who was required to read a shot book in order to participate in a discussion. Mind you, he was brilliant. Held patents and everything. But each time he came back with the report that he had read the book he was told, "No, *read* the book!" Well, for some reason he was unreasonably persistant. After literally twenty seven (27) readings he finally admitted that his prejudices as to what the book was about had blinded him to its actual meaning, at least to the point that he now understood it. He was then welcomed into the discussion. True story.
Another thing this reminds me of is a part of the account of Carlos Castaneda's apprenticeship with a Yaqui medicine man. His intent was to learn the lore of herbs and plants in that culture. Instead, the Inidan dosed him repeatedly with incredibly strong halucigens. He took them as part of his alleged education. Years later, when he was recalling those days with his Mentor and asked what that had to do with his learnings, the Indian laughed till his belly hurt, and explained: "You were so stupidly convinced of your own world view as being the only possible one, it took that drastic of an assult to break you into receptivity. The drugs were unnecessary except to break your habitual thinking."
You can claim, if you wish, that such tales are balderdash. But really, you don't know your own mind and the trechery it is capable of in convincing you that your way is singularly correct. No; really. 1 Peter 5:8
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Actually, I’m agnostic. I have no problem with you being Catholic (well, I do, but many call themselves Catholic when they aren’t, so the label is next to useless), I just tend to attack arguments that begin with a reference to the authority making the argument.
Who are you addressing in this paragraph? All of us?
You’re deadly serious, but you don’t care? Okay…
I don’t need scripture to be aware of this, but thanks for offering. It’s also curious that I don’t know my own mind, but you apparently do. Have you considered becoming a magician?
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Dear 4,
You might want to think about going on a retreat with a good retreat master.
God bless,
4Horsemen
D
Dameedna
Guest
Yep
D
Dameedna
Guest
I think God being Mean, depends on what you think or believe God has done.
There are plenty of elements of each religion(or doctrines), that I find quite horrific and would rightly ask, how could God be so mean?
Either the religions are correct and God DID do these things, or the religion is wrong. Weirdly enough, even though I don’t believe in God, I still think the religion is wrong.
Some-one once said to me, that non-belief is a form of belief. It’s a form of a belief in a greater God. Athiesm in many ways is a belief in a MUCH BIGGER God than that of christianity. Unfortunately this god, has no representative religion and…of course, provides no evidence of itself. So it doesn’t really exist. But if God DID exist…the athiest, believes in a much bigger God, than does the average “believer”.
Anyway, One meanness example, would be sending down plauges to “punish” people. This is horrifying.
Another example, would be the doctrine of heaven and hell. The depth of the horror of THAT particular doctrine has no boundary. It is utterly revolting and to me, cannot possibly be true.
Whenever I come across a mean example of God, I suspect it is a man-made invention. Or God is just mean and I’ll never know why. But…if she does exist…then I doubt meanness is an attribute. It’s simply too SMALL of an attribute to be given to an entity that has grounded this universe in its’ being.
A LOT of human suffering is a result of human behaviour. That I can accept. A great deal however, is a result of nature. That’s the toughest part to reconcile and one of the many reasons I don’t support the God hypothesis(no arguments about a fall from sin causing natural evil even remotely surfice btw).
Cheers
There are plenty of elements of each religion(or doctrines), that I find quite horrific and would rightly ask, how could God be so mean?
Either the religions are correct and God DID do these things, or the religion is wrong. Weirdly enough, even though I don’t believe in God, I still think the religion is wrong.
Some-one once said to me, that non-belief is a form of belief. It’s a form of a belief in a greater God. Athiesm in many ways is a belief in a MUCH BIGGER God than that of christianity. Unfortunately this god, has no representative religion and…of course, provides no evidence of itself. So it doesn’t really exist. But if God DID exist…the athiest, believes in a much bigger God, than does the average “believer”.
Anyway, One meanness example, would be sending down plauges to “punish” people. This is horrifying.
Another example, would be the doctrine of heaven and hell. The depth of the horror of THAT particular doctrine has no boundary. It is utterly revolting and to me, cannot possibly be true.
Whenever I come across a mean example of God, I suspect it is a man-made invention. Or God is just mean and I’ll never know why. But…if she does exist…then I doubt meanness is an attribute. It’s simply too SMALL of an attribute to be given to an entity that has grounded this universe in its’ being.
A LOT of human suffering is a result of human behaviour. That I can accept. A great deal however, is a result of nature. That’s the toughest part to reconcile and one of the many reasons I don’t support the God hypothesis(no arguments about a fall from sin causing natural evil even remotely surfice btw).
Cheers
A
alacoque
Guest
That’s right. God does not cause suffering. Man causes suffering. But God keeps all suffering, poverty, sickness and pain from being meaningless and “unnecessary”.So you don’t think that their is unnecessary poverty, sickness, pain and suffering?
Love and prayers,
This is actually a very deep and profound topic and not easily responded to in a forum context, so I would suggest a very good book you might want to check out for this very issue/topic: **The Promise **by Fr. Jonathan Morris
God bless you
D
Dameedna
Guest
What is the meaning, or the point behind eternal suffering?
Does this book address that question? Curious…because I’ve never found anything that answers it in a way that I don’t find completely horrifying(IE, the suffering of those who reject(xyz religion/view of god) is so that the good feel a sense of justice…good God!!! )
Cheers
A
alacoque
Guest
I understand completely what you are saying here and it is sound. I agree with what you have said, too, in the sense that I know what you mean on a deeper level. But for the seemingly inexplicable, horrendous, unimaginable horrors in the world and also for the deep, profound and desperate agony that so many individuals suffer from, physically, emotionally and spiritually, it is not enough to use the ‘scale’ concept.
In his book When Bad Things Happen To Good People, Rabbi Kusher that after losing his young son, he recognized and realized so many wonderous and good things in himself and his life (even here in this life) that he knows would not have been, had he not suffered that loss. And after having said that, he says he would forego it ALL just to have his son back.
So, the problem of suffering and human pain is a very deep and mysterious thing and although the scale of weighing this vs that, as you wrote, is sound, it does not go far enough for those who need an explanation or way to understand.
God bless you
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
God didn’t cause these things. They are the result of human sin, and God demands we do our best to put them right.So you don’t think that their is unnecessary poverty, sickness, pain and suffering?
Love and prayers,
If your child makes a mess, and you tell your child to clean up the mess, are you being mean?
God is not mean. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Does that sound mean to you?
D
Dameedna
Guest
That would depend on wether or not I gave my child a plauge/disease which killed them, to teach them a lesson.
There are definately some very mean stories attributed to God. No doubt about it.
A
alacoque
Guest
No…this is a false idea. Creation is a single, utterly self-consistent act which to us seems, at first sight, as the creation of many independent things, and then as the creation of things mutually necessary. ‘Possible worlds’ can only mean** ‘worlds that God could have made, but didn’t.’** The idea of that which God “could have” done involves a too anthropomorphic concept of God’s freedom.
Whatever our human freedom means, Divine freedom does not and cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and the choice of one of them. This is because perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be achieved, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means best suited to achieve it.
God’s blessings…
A
alacoque
Guest
God never ‘gave’ anyone plague and God never ‘made’ anyone sick. You lack understanding and education in the matters you are referring to. If you’re really seeking truth, you will find it, by seeking. If you are not seeking truth, then you’re just sharing your own misunderstandings.
D
Dameedna
Guest
I have a good friend, who teaches catholic theology. He and I have discussed this ad nauseum. It is a part of your religion not mine. Plauges were punishment by God.
If you don’t think that’s part of your religion, not much more to say really.
D
Dameedna
Guest
Nothing in what you just said, actually addressed the quote you just responded too.No…this is a false idea. Creation is a single, utterly self-consistent act which to us seems, at first sight, as the creation of many independent things, and then as the creation of things mutually necessary. ‘Possible worlds’ can only mean** ‘worlds that God could have made, but didn’t.’** The idea of that which God “could have” done involves a too anthropomorphic concept of God’s freedom.
Whatever our human freedom means, Divine freedom does not and cannot mean indeterminacy between alternatives and the choice of one of them. This is because perfect goodness can never debate about the end to be achieved, and perfect wisdom cannot debate about the means best suited to achieve it.
God’s blessings…
Lets try again.
God could have made a world without volcanos, tsunamis and natural evil. He chose not too.(according to christians).
Can you address this?
D
Detales
Guest
OK, let’s say that you are a student of human nature and notice that people
a) do what they can to survive
b) always tend to want more
c) almost always believe that their own and particular way of life is the “right” way, even the singularly “one and only right way”
d) tend somehow to impose their will on others who either disagree or are different
e) tend often to take from those who have if they don’t, or simply if they want
f) either as individuals or as groups are willing to commit atrocities of any necessary magnitude to accomplish their ends regarding the above.
So, not having power of a coercive kind, say police or military might, and discovering that advocating a general peaceful good for it’s own sake doesn’t necessarily work, the device of referring to a higher power is invoked. Now given that simple good as an end is not sufficient to countermand the actions of those who wield force, the idea of sanctions wielded by a higher power, God, might be used as a tool for control, or at least delay, in terms of controlling physical brute force. Given the degree to which people are willing to go to harm each other to get what they want, those God sanctions had to be horrific beyond the capacity of the brute humans to do their own brand of evil.
So that’s why, in my opinion, God is portrayed as “mean” in the OT. Those were tough times, as are any times when want, greed, or fear drive human action. Such a portrayal could also be used to instill courage and confidence. Even today we find teams each praying to the same God to assist them in smiting their enemy on the field, whether athletic or political. Of course, winning is the proof that there was Divine intervention and right, as it is the proof in any good outcome. Commensurately, the inscrutable “Will of God” is the the blame point if one is on the loosing team or if things go awry.
Anyway, that is why in the last analysis God is “mean.” It is because we may be so generally immature as to need the threat of sanctions as horrific as hell in order to keep most of us of “christendom” in line. Remember, most people in the history of the world by far have never heard of the christianist god, and even today only about 1/3 of us are christians of any description. Necessarily, since these sanctions are a threat imposed from the outside, these sanctions fail except with the meek. The only sure safety against the horror of man made hell is the internal verity of the Golden Rule known as a matter of Identity. But even that is only a safety against the mature perpetrating Sheol on Earth, not as a defense against the moral infants of the world who proliferate within and without the structures of religious thought throughout the world.
God, as God, knows nothing of good and evil. That anthropomorphism is an invention of Man in a relativistic world. In that relativistic world there are levels of human moral development from the egoistic animal to the Divinely inspired Saint or Philosopher. At one end of that spectrum, no sanction will obtain. At the other, none is needed, for the mature human soul sees the other as their own Self. In between somewhere is a gray ground of emotionally susceptible folk who need or use the sanction of eternal punishment and the threat of “God’s” wrath in order to behave. That is the great holding tank from which souls may either ascend by effort or fall from by seduction. In either case, the mind, the deceiver that perceives and portrays the world according to learned parochial limits in essentially divisive terms, is the obstacle to be overcome. This is why the Great Teachers have always espoused Unity and Oneness. It is why Goodness is not an act or acts of kindness; it is a state of knowing/being the actual foundational nature of Love. That is where God may be approached and known, and punishment and retribution are nowhere on the soul scape, evil being seen simply as Self ignorance.
Does this negate anything for those of you protective and invested in your relationship with Jesus as portrayed by the Church? Not at all. But it might prove with effort on your part to perceive the original premise of His teaching from which, I believe, the Church has strayed.
a) do what they can to survive
b) always tend to want more
c) almost always believe that their own and particular way of life is the “right” way, even the singularly “one and only right way”
d) tend somehow to impose their will on others who either disagree or are different
e) tend often to take from those who have if they don’t, or simply if they want
f) either as individuals or as groups are willing to commit atrocities of any necessary magnitude to accomplish their ends regarding the above.
So, not having power of a coercive kind, say police or military might, and discovering that advocating a general peaceful good for it’s own sake doesn’t necessarily work, the device of referring to a higher power is invoked. Now given that simple good as an end is not sufficient to countermand the actions of those who wield force, the idea of sanctions wielded by a higher power, God, might be used as a tool for control, or at least delay, in terms of controlling physical brute force. Given the degree to which people are willing to go to harm each other to get what they want, those God sanctions had to be horrific beyond the capacity of the brute humans to do their own brand of evil.
So that’s why, in my opinion, God is portrayed as “mean” in the OT. Those were tough times, as are any times when want, greed, or fear drive human action. Such a portrayal could also be used to instill courage and confidence. Even today we find teams each praying to the same God to assist them in smiting their enemy on the field, whether athletic or political. Of course, winning is the proof that there was Divine intervention and right, as it is the proof in any good outcome. Commensurately, the inscrutable “Will of God” is the the blame point if one is on the loosing team or if things go awry.
Anyway, that is why in the last analysis God is “mean.” It is because we may be so generally immature as to need the threat of sanctions as horrific as hell in order to keep most of us of “christendom” in line. Remember, most people in the history of the world by far have never heard of the christianist god, and even today only about 1/3 of us are christians of any description. Necessarily, since these sanctions are a threat imposed from the outside, these sanctions fail except with the meek. The only sure safety against the horror of man made hell is the internal verity of the Golden Rule known as a matter of Identity. But even that is only a safety against the mature perpetrating Sheol on Earth, not as a defense against the moral infants of the world who proliferate within and without the structures of religious thought throughout the world.
God, as God, knows nothing of good and evil. That anthropomorphism is an invention of Man in a relativistic world. In that relativistic world there are levels of human moral development from the egoistic animal to the Divinely inspired Saint or Philosopher. At one end of that spectrum, no sanction will obtain. At the other, none is needed, for the mature human soul sees the other as their own Self. In between somewhere is a gray ground of emotionally susceptible folk who need or use the sanction of eternal punishment and the threat of “God’s” wrath in order to behave. That is the great holding tank from which souls may either ascend by effort or fall from by seduction. In either case, the mind, the deceiver that perceives and portrays the world according to learned parochial limits in essentially divisive terms, is the obstacle to be overcome. This is why the Great Teachers have always espoused Unity and Oneness. It is why Goodness is not an act or acts of kindness; it is a state of knowing/being the actual foundational nature of Love. That is where God may be approached and known, and punishment and retribution are nowhere on the soul scape, evil being seen simply as Self ignorance.
Does this negate anything for those of you protective and invested in your relationship with Jesus as portrayed by the Church? Not at all. But it might prove with effort on your part to perceive the original premise of His teaching from which, I believe, the Church has strayed.
Code:
Dameedna, nice to see you weighing in here with a note of sanity.
A
alacoque
Guest
All I can do is say it again…and yes, what I said did exactly address your statement I quoted.
The point is that there IS no such thing, for God, as various alternative worlds He ‘could have created’ but chose not to. And the best way I know how to say it, with the least words, is as I did above…
God is perfect goodness. There ARE no alternative, possible perfections…there is only one - by definition - perfection is perfection, not a variety or number of possible perfections…so there is only ONE perfect world which is the one God created
and, for the same reason (God is perfect wisdom), the ‘way’ in which the perfect world God created operates is also perfect and so admits of no number of possible perfect ways (with tsunamis, without tsunamis, etc) of which God chooses one over the other.
And I said that because Divine freedom is not like our human freedom, our tendency is to anthropomorphise and over simplify (according to our incomplete, limited understanding) the nature of God, His freedom and His creation.
I can only try again to say: God creates in one single, self-consistent act which to us seems, at first sight, as the creation of many independent things, and then as the creation of things mutually necessary. Ya gotta think about it awhile…
The only other thing I can add would be to take us to AFTER God’s creation and to the fall of man. When man’s pride called him to want to ‘be’ God rather than to loving obedience ‘to’ God, and caused the irrevocable (until the redemption) break in the bond between and oneness of God and man, everything was affected.
Man and all of creation was affected. So, if it helps, you could come at it the other way, also, and say that the world of suffering, be it of our own doing by misuse of our freedom or be it in nature, is part of the tear in the fabric of the perfection intended and originally created.
God didn’t create the world we have today; it’s part and parcel of the fall, which affected, profoundly and on an intrinsic level, all of creation, and not just a couple people in a garden.
That’s all I can say…if it’s not clear or you don’t feel it’s responsive to the quote, I’ve got nothing better to add… thanks!!
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Yes, I can address this. You are absolutely correct. God could have created a universe without the possibility of evil existing in any shape, form, or matter. God also could have never created anything at all as well.
It is my understanding and belief also that “creation” is not a static event that happened just in the past. Creation is an ongoing event that is occuring even as we speak and human beings are “participants” with God in His creation.
4
4Horsemen
Guest
When Jesus entered the world, he began the New Covenant, the Covenant of law as opposed to the Old Covenant of law. Not that the Ten Commandments don’t apply. In fact, they are intrinsic to the Law of Love. If we love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind, and all our strength and our neighbor as ourselves–if we did that PERFECTLY–we would be keeping the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, there would be less suffering in this world.
My version of things: take it or leave it, or revise it please.
The OT was written by human beings, although inspired by God. I know, I know, you heard all about this already, but understand that it was written from the point of view of people who lived at the time. Evil is mostly a result of sin. There was always sin in the world after the fall from grace (since God made a PERFECT world). In His Divine Mercy, He sent His Only Begotten Son into the world to make up for sin–the PERFECT holocaust to appease the justice of God.
Now Jesus had to be born into a race/culture of people. The Israelites were the chosen people, most likely because they were small (God has a particular favor for the smallest, most humble in His world) and despised by many other groups. He sent prophets to announce His plan of salvation. The Israelites were actually more interested in a temperal ruler however, but a remnant remained true to the words of the prophets and worshipped Yahweh through the bloody sacrifices required to atone for sin.
True, that God “favored” the Israelites and even displaced people for them (battle of Jericho) and freed them from slavery. Others died in the process. Is that fair? No, not in our thinking. But it brought salvation to the world. Those who died before knowing Christ as Lord and Savior have been dealt with justice and mercy because that is the nature of God. (Our soldiers die in wars; children die–there is no FAIRNESS on this earth. We’ll only understand in Heaven.
I don’t suppose I’ve gotten into the reason why there is so much suffering in the world. :shrug:One poster doesn’t want to accept the idea of the “Fall” of our first parents, but that’s the starting point. Through temptation comes sin, which is a great evil, an affront to almighty God and must be redeemed. Humans have free will to choose God or reject Him. God doesn’t want puppets.
I think that many of the posters can’t accept the idea of God’s JUSTICE. But, think, it is balanced with His Mercy. In fact, the great saints tell us that His MERCY exceeds His justice. He has given us great help in time of need when we trust Him and invite Him into our lives. (He only comes by invitation).
The reason for Hell IMHO, was because the angels (who also had free will) rebelled against God in an intellectual battle, so God had to create an actual place (be it under the earth or in another dimension) since He created them to be immortal, as He created out souls. (Why? Probably because He wanted them–and us–to share His everlasting happiness in Heaven).
So, our moral choices are free regardless of circumstances of time in the ages of man, place or situation regarding birth, family, culture, etc. . . We need to see God’s purpose not from our limited tunnel vision, but as He sees. “My ways are above your ways. . .”
Also, see biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=1&version=31. As has been said so many times: “For those who believe, not explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is sufficient.”
I heard this story that when Fulton J. Sheen was confronted by an atheist, he retorted, “So what is your sin?”
My version of things: take it or leave it, or revise it please.
The OT was written by human beings, although inspired by God. I know, I know, you heard all about this already, but understand that it was written from the point of view of people who lived at the time. Evil is mostly a result of sin. There was always sin in the world after the fall from grace (since God made a PERFECT world). In His Divine Mercy, He sent His Only Begotten Son into the world to make up for sin–the PERFECT holocaust to appease the justice of God.
Now Jesus had to be born into a race/culture of people. The Israelites were the chosen people, most likely because they were small (God has a particular favor for the smallest, most humble in His world) and despised by many other groups. He sent prophets to announce His plan of salvation. The Israelites were actually more interested in a temperal ruler however, but a remnant remained true to the words of the prophets and worshipped Yahweh through the bloody sacrifices required to atone for sin.
True, that God “favored” the Israelites and even displaced people for them (battle of Jericho) and freed them from slavery. Others died in the process. Is that fair? No, not in our thinking. But it brought salvation to the world. Those who died before knowing Christ as Lord and Savior have been dealt with justice and mercy because that is the nature of God. (Our soldiers die in wars; children die–there is no FAIRNESS on this earth. We’ll only understand in Heaven.
I don’t suppose I’ve gotten into the reason why there is so much suffering in the world. :shrug:One poster doesn’t want to accept the idea of the “Fall” of our first parents, but that’s the starting point. Through temptation comes sin, which is a great evil, an affront to almighty God and must be redeemed. Humans have free will to choose God or reject Him. God doesn’t want puppets.
I think that many of the posters can’t accept the idea of God’s JUSTICE. But, think, it is balanced with His Mercy. In fact, the great saints tell us that His MERCY exceeds His justice. He has given us great help in time of need when we trust Him and invite Him into our lives. (He only comes by invitation).
The reason for Hell IMHO, was because the angels (who also had free will) rebelled against God in an intellectual battle, so God had to create an actual place (be it under the earth or in another dimension) since He created them to be immortal, as He created out souls. (Why? Probably because He wanted them–and us–to share His everlasting happiness in Heaven).
So, our moral choices are free regardless of circumstances of time in the ages of man, place or situation regarding birth, family, culture, etc. . . We need to see God’s purpose not from our limited tunnel vision, but as He sees. “My ways are above your ways. . .”
Also, see biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=1&version=31. As has been said so many times: “For those who believe, not explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is sufficient.”
I heard this story that when Fulton J. Sheen was confronted by an atheist, he retorted, “So what is your sin?”
- Status