Why is God so mean?

[jkiernan56]

meaningful objective morality cannot exist any easier with a God than without one.

I found the above a very interesting statement. Would you care to engage me on this and explain what you mean? And on what basis are you able to have any position at all?

I do not agree with your premise. I will be formulating a response to explain why. I would appreciate the same if you care to respectfully debate ideas and have the ability to support them. Otherwise, statements are just “farts in the wind”. Easy to do, impossible to catch.

Is your statement just a fart in the wind?

 

[4Horsemen]

Detales: Re: Toastmachines’s signature ~ “What happens to the sinful creatures of God, however tragic, is less monstrous than what happened to the Son of God.” P.J. Forsyth: God did that to Himself! HE sent his Son. Who is the “monster?” The total impossibility of that alleged dynamic in Catholic terms confirms for me that the Church’s interpretation of the Jesus story is so off base as to be a prophylactic to any actual realizaton of the significance of that very Real and utterly fundamental Sacrifice. If there is meanness in god, it is in the god made up to do such an impossibility in those terms. I maintain that incarnation and redemption are on much firmer ground than that mythos promulgated by the Church as its misunderstanding of Jesus, who was the Son of God. I guess we might say then, that the alleged meanness of god is in fact the perhaps ignorant and habitual intellectualized meanness of the Church in misrepresenting the actual facts.

It seems to me, Detales, that you’ve come out of the woodwork, not as a Christian, although you professed belief in the Incarnation and Redemption (am I correct?) in one post along the way. So God is the “monster” because He “sent his Son” and is, therefore, mean? And the Church is off-base in interpreting what you call “that very Real and utterly fundamental Sacrifice.” What is your interpretation? Christians say that God demonstrated His ultimate, all-encompassing love by this great Sacrifice.

I don’t know if it was mentioned, but God created a perfect world. He couldn’t do otherwise because He, Himself, is perfect–perfection. To create an imperfect world would be a contradiction. Therefore, it is a nullity, as in creating circular squares. You call it projecting anthropormophic attributes to God by saying He is Perfection, Goodness, Love. . . No, we come to an understanding of what God is through reason and, then, revelation. Through reason, we can affirm a God of Goodness, first of all, because of creation–the mere fact of our existence itself. True, we JUDGE that to be (a) good, but the fact that we can comprehend the difference between what is good and evil brings to light our rational minds that can come to an understanding of the Natural Law. We observe through our senses and extrapolate that which is abstract. We can come to a basic knowledge of God-ness, you might say.

On another track along this thread: Calling God “God” rather than IS might be a stumbling block for some since it appears to make Him only the OTHER. However, GOD (“I AM WHO AM”-- in other words, IS) is transcendent and immanent. He is outside His creatures and within them.

(If I misunderstood the posts, please correct me).

4

 

[One]

In my world, reality starts with acknowledging God exists.

And in turn (and especially being new here), I’m curious as to what that means to you, j.

You’ve acknowledged that it’s your belief. Is it your experience, as well, or just a belief? Is God separate and distinct from “you?” Is God a part of you? Is God you? Are you “God?”

I only ask because when we “acknowledge that God exists,” I would tend to think that we have something to base that on, and I’m curious as to what that is for you.

With respect,
1*

• Cuts down on typing.

 

[One]

On another track along this thread: Calling God “God” rather than IS might be a stumbling block for some since it appears to make Him only the OTHER. However, GOD (“I AM WHO AM”-- in other words, IS) is transcendent and immanent. He is outside His creatures and within them.

4

If God/IS is all that is, all that was, all that will ever be (or however else we may phrase it), and is both outside and within the creatures he creates (which I happen to pretty much agree with), then why do people think that they have to go somewhere to find God/IS? Why do people believe that they have to do things for God/IS? Why do they believe that they have to act certain ways in order to please this God/IS?

It just seems to me that if God-is-everything, that includes us – not as separate creatures with a discrete existence, but that we are the same essence as… “made in his image”, I believe someone quoted earlier.

Transcendent/Immanent. Eros/Agape. Is/Is Not.

We believe in separation. I doubt that’s the case.

 

[jkiernan56]

And in turn (and especially being new here), I’m curious as to what that means to you, j.

You’ve acknowledged that it’s your belief. Is it your experience, as well, or just a belief? Is God separate and distinct from “you?” Is God a part of you? Is God you? Are you “God?”

I only ask because when we “acknowledge that God exists,” I would tend to think that we have something to base that on, and I’m curious as to what that is for you.

With respect,
1*

• Cuts down on typing.

My knowledge comes from direct experience. If you would like a link to where I have spoken of this experience, here it is -

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5029400#post5029400

It is in my bones the understanding that only God HAS TO EXIST and God did not need to create anything. God could have continued in BEING for all eternity without ever creating anything.

You asked "Is God separate and distinct from “you?” Is God a part of you? Is God you? Are you “God?”

God is completely and totally OTHER than me. I need not exist.
I am NOT God and God IS NOT me.
God is willing my existence and yours moment by moment by his sheer will and thought. If God should cease to think of creation, it would cease to exist.

I absolutely know God exists by experience and all that I have read about what others have written (St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas) on this truth confirm my experience. God loves each one of us in a very personal and distinct way. You are one of a kind. You wouldn’t exist if God didn’t want you to exist. God wants to have a personal relationship with you, and me for the rest of eternity. Not because God needs, but He wants and is intensely in love with each of us. Why? Now you are asking something that really baffles me.

 

[jkiernan56]

If God/IS is all that is, all that was, all that will ever be (or however else we may phrase it), and is both outside and within the creatures he creates (which I happen to pretty much agree with), then why do people think that they have to go somewhere to find God/IS? Why do people believe that they have to do things for God/IS? Why do they believe that they have to act certain ways in order to please this God/IS?

It just seems to me that if God-is-everything, that includes us – not as separate creatures with a discrete existence, but that we are the same essence as… “made in his image”, I believe someone quoted earlier.

Transcendent/Immanent. Eros/Agape. Is/Is Not.

We believe in separation. I doubt that’s the case.

Your statement that “God is within” needs to be explained and put in context - otherwise you might be guilty of Pantheism …

I acknowledge that all created reality (seen and unseen) is held in existence by the sheer will and thought of God. If God should cease to think of creation, it would cease to exist. God does not depend or require His creation for His own existence.

God in reference to you or me is both the “furthest reality” and “closest reality” at the same time.

Is this the context that you mean that “God is within”? Or do you mean something totally different? I’d really be interested in hearing from you on this.

 

[tonyrey]

Hume is saying that natural theology, as many define it, says that there is some cause of the universe which is at least somewhat analogous to the human mind (not just some physical process). He clearly is not saying that he supports this view. He goes on to say that even if this were true, this would be useless. Merely knowing that there is some sort of immaterial mind that caused the universe does not give you any idea about how we as humans should behave, because we would still know nothing about what that God would want.

There is no doubt that Hume was a sceptic and rejected the moral aspect of design but however weak the analogy he expressed it so forcefully it is unlikely he had his tongue in his cheek:
“A purpose, an intention, or design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it… hat the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the productions of art is evident: and according to all the rules of good reasoning, we ought to infer … that their causes have a proportional analogy.”
His final words on the subject, and mine since I share them, are:
“Consider then, where the real point of controversy lies; and if you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure yourselves of your animosity.”

I am saying that he could prevent each disaster at its source.

You are forgetting that disasters are the result of the interplay of physical laws.

And since God is all powerful, he could create a world set up in such a way that the perpetual miracles would be part of the universe’s behavior, and not something that he’d have to continually intervene to produce.

If by miracles you mean constant interventions, like making a car swerve to avoid an accident, then the regularity of nature will be disturbed because these interventions will occur at irregular intervals. How else do you interpret miracles? As I stated at the outset, a detailed blueprint is required…

 

[Detales]

I agree with One. How can you become what you always already Are in Essence? The sense of separation (hell) is a function of fixation on the limitations of subject/object awareness. You live beliveing (pretending) that you have to save what already cannot be lost. Is God divided against Himself? Imposible. Or as as One might phrase it " Is IS not (what) IS?" English, being funda-mentally dualistic,* is a difficult medium in which to express this in s/o terms, but upon realization it is known. You torture yourself with projecting the dynamics of separation learned from lesser than the Master who misunderstood Him. Why do you think Mark 4:33-34 is part of my signature?

4’s description of how we allegedly come to know God is completely within the subject/object relativism of thought, which is dependent on IS and only appears, due to focus on polarity, as as a necessity of s/o awareness and manifestation. The Jesus story is in fact a deliniation of the ages old understanding of Man, as an Idea, manifested in the appearance of materiality (incarnaton) looking at himself not separate from Nature and discovering his innate at-onement with Essence/IS (redemption.)

God/IS comprehends both Being and manifestation inseperable one form the seeming other. “My garment is without seam or rent.” Examine deeply the Identity statements of Jesus. On examination of the source of your own experience you might find that this is so for yourslef. Then you might say with those who have attained, “I have not been decieved!” or “I see mySelf glorified as ALL!” Then you can be a Catholic in the original sense and go to church if you wish.

*As R.A. Heinlein astutely and correctly pointed out, "In English only the first person singular of the verb "to be" is true to fact."

P.S. God being "outside His Creation" simply means that in terms of the subject/object mode of awareness it is impossible to see the pre-existing Unity of God/IS and his Idea Man. Change mode and you will instanly percieve this to be so. There is no separation, only in illusion. S/O is illusive in that it does not comprehend the Ground of Being that includes it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist

Merely knowing that there is some sort of immaterial mind that caused the universe does not give you any idea about how we as humans should behave, because we would still know nothing about what that God would want.

According to Samuel Johnson, a usually reliable source, Hume never read the Scriptures, or at least never took them seriously. This would be the position of any atheist who never bothered to get to God by reading the Bible and taking it seriously.

Hume’s shallowness as a thinker is nowhere more evident than in this quotation:

“**The sweetest and most inoffensive path of life leads through the avenues of science **and learning; and whoever can either remove any obstruction in this way, or open up any new prospect, ought, so far, to be esteemed a benefactor to mankind.”

For myself, the “sweetest and most inofensive path of life” must lead down the avenues of virture and character. I had a good deal rather know and admire an untaught man with a pure heart than a scientist on the “offensive path” to nuclear weapons.

 

[toastmachines]

Re: Toastmachines’s signature ~ “What happens to the sinful creatures of God, however tragic, is less monstrous than what happened to the Son of God.” P.J. Forsyth: God did that to Himself! HE sent his Son. Who is the “monster?” The total impossibility of that alleged dynamic in Catholic terms confirms for me that the Church’s interpretation of the Jesus story is so off base as to be a prophylactic to any actual realizaton of the significance of that very Real and utterly fundamental Sacrifice. If there is meanness in god, it is in the god made up to do such an impossibility in those terms. I maintain that incarnation and redemption are on much firmer ground than that mythos promulgated by the Church as its misunderstanding of Jesus, who was the Son of God. I guess we might say then, that the alleged meanness of god is in fact the perhaps ignorant and habitual intellectualized meanness of the Church in misrepresenting the actual facts.

So the people of Jerusalem didn’t really reject our Lord and Savior in the cruelest manner before he was crucified? Or are you saying that such behavior wasn’t atrocious and / or there was no free will involved because God “did that to himself”? I don’t begin RCIA until this fall and I have yet to read the Catholic Church’s specific interpretation of the events, so please explain this impossible dynamic you speak of; I’m all ears. Feel free to pm and clarify.

In all fairness I came across that quote in a book; I don’t know anything about the author. Christ begged for forgiveness on behalf of his tormentors. For me, personally, the quote is a reminder that when I managed to eventually forgive others for things “unforgivable”, I did what I was supposed to do. That will probably sound dumb to most, but I’ve had a lot of people sore at me for being “too forgiving” to people “who don’t deserve it.”

 

[Detales]

Thanks for your sincere interest, Lisa. I can understand about what you are saying about forgiveness as I have been in that boat to some degrees as well. No perception of dumbnes on my part, au contrair.

Since your questions are somewhat off topic for this thread I will be happy to PM you tomorrow with some explanations and reference materials. I don’t expect you will agree, but perhaps we can at least understand the ideas involved.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I found the above a very interesting statement. Would you care to engage me on this and explain what you mean? And on what basis are you able to have any position at all?

I do not agree with your premise. I will be formulating a response to explain why. I would appreciate the same if you care to respectfully debate ideas and have the ability to support them. Otherwise, statements are just “farts in the wind”. Easy to do, impossible to catch.

Is your statement just a fart in the wind?

Well it’s a complicated argument. I’d first need to know whether you believe that God’s will is good merely because it’s God’s (for example, murder would be good if that was God’s will), or whether God by nature adheres to some standard of morality. If there’s a standard of morality that God adheres to, then there can be morality if God doesn’t exist, and you would need to explain what makes that the standard of morality rather than something else. If things are moral merely based on God’s will, then God is not good in any meaningful way. I start having a big discussion of it on page 5 of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=343300 . If you have the time, I’d really appreciate it if you took a look. I’d copy in some of my old arguments, but my computer’s on the fritz. I’m getting by on just keyboard shortcuts, so posting is hard enough already.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

There is no doubt that Hume was a sceptic and rejected the moral aspect of design but however weak the analogy he expressed it so forcefully it is unlikely he had his tongue in his cheek:
“A purpose, an intention, or design strikes everywhere the most careless, the most stupid thinker; and no man can be so hardened in absurd systems, as at all times to reject it… hat the works of Nature bear a great analogy to the productions of art is evident: and according to all the rules of good reasoning, we ought to infer … that their causes have a proportional analogy.”
His final words on the subject, and mine since I share them, are:
“Consider then, where the real point of controversy lies; and if you cannot lay aside your disputes, endeavour, at least, to cure yourselves of your animosity.”

You are forgetting that disasters are the result of the interplay of physical laws. If by miracles you mean constant interventions, like making a car swerve to avoid an accident, then the regularity of nature will be disturbed because these interventions will occur at irregular intervals. How else do you interpret miracles? As I stated at the outset, a detailed blueprint is required…

You believe that God is constrained in what kind of blueprint he can draw up. I take God’s omnipotence seriously. If he had wanted to create matter to behave differently than it does, he could have. I am not talking about occasionally making cars swerve. I am talking about never having hurricaines even begin to form.

And as promised, I will not continue to explain Hume to you. You have used his work out of context to make it seem like he meant something other than what he did a couple different times. When I point this out, you refuse to acknowledge your error. As promised, I will not keep playing your game.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist

Merely knowing that there is some sort of immaterial mind that caused the universe does not give you any idea about how we as humans should behave, because we would still know nothing about what that God would want.

According to Samuel Johnson, a usually reliable source, Hume never read the Scriptures, or at least never took them seriously. This would be the position of any atheist who never bothered to get to God by reading the Bible and taking it seriously.

Hume’s shallowness as a thinker is nowhere more evident than in this quotation:

“**The sweetest and most inoffensive path of life leads through the avenues of science **and learning; and whoever can either remove any obstruction in this way, or open up any new prospect, ought, so far, to be esteemed a benefactor to mankind.”

For myself, the “sweetest and most inofensive path of life” must lead down the avenues of virture and character. I had a good deal rather know and admire an untaught man with a pure heart than a scientist on the “offensive path” to nuclear weapons.

I think you’re being a little hard on Hume. The man did have a lot of brilliant insights. However, I do not use arguments from authority because I think they are invalid. Just because one smart person felt one way about God doesn’t mean everyone should. I care more about the reasons behind someone’s beliefs rather than their name. I am only talking about Hume because someone tried to say that I should have a certain belief because Hume did. I was pointing out that not only are my beliefs independent of Hume’s, but Hume did not believe anything close to what that person was saying he believed in.

 

[4Horsemen]

If God/IS is all that is, all that was, all that will ever be (or however else we may phrase it), and is both outside and within the creatures he creates (which I happen to pretty much agree with), then why do people think that they have to go somewhere to find God/IS? Why do people believe that they have to do things for God/IS? Why do they believe that they have to act certain ways in order to please this God/IS?

It just seems to me that if God-is-everything, that includes us – not as separate creatures with a discrete existence, but that we are the same essence as… “made in his image”, I believe someone quoted earlier.

Transcendent/Immanent. Eros/Agape. Is/Is Not.

We believe in separation. I doubt that’s the case.

Good question: “. . . why do people think that they have to go somewhere to find God/IS?” I don’t know about other people’s ways of finding God, but from my own experience I had to first lose Him to find Him, contrary as it sounds. IOW, I had to lose the first impressions (childhood/authoritarian) and ideas of what I believed about God. So I became an atheist, more agnostic, in college. Yet I continued to be a seeker of Truth.
As Scripture says, “When you seek me with all your heart, you will find me.” (Deut. 4:29) I found Him lurking in the depths of my Being. He filled me with expectations and set me on adventures. He is both within and without. He is essence and existence. Nothing would be in existence without His willing it. Through His Spirit, which blows where it will, all creation is animated.

Why do people feel they have to do things for God and please Him, you ask, as I paraphrase your questions? It’s not a matter of “having to” but “wanting to.” When someone loves you unconditionally (only God can) and has proven it (by dying for you), you want to start by at least thanking that Person, then getting to know that Person, and, discovering that Person’s attributes, you fall in love with Him. It’s because we humans are purposive and find our ends in what we see as a good, that is, fulfilling our destiny in what we seek. If we seek the ultimate end of our being, we find that the goal is the Ultimate Being/God-ness/IS/I AM WHO AM.

Keep in mind that God is both without as the cause of our being and within as the breath of our being. I believe that is meant by the sentence we learn in religious ed: God is everywhere. Yes, we are “made in His image and likeness” (our souls), but we are NOT, in and of itself, HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS.

 

[jean8]

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

PJM,
This is really a comical question.
Do you think your mother was mean when she disciplined you?
Or were you a perfect child?
How are you doing with the Ten Commandments?
If you have mangaed to get through this day without breaking any, your perfect.
God punishes those that he loves, just like your mother did.

God bless,
jean

 

[Oreoracle]

PJM,
This is really a comical question.
Do you think your mother was mean when she disciplined you?
Or were you a perfect child?
How are you doing with the Ten Commandments?
If you have mangaed to get through this day without breaking any, your perfect.
God punishes those that he loves, just like your mother did.

God bless,
jean

You defend your god by comparing him to a human. We humans are not omnipotent. The mother could only stop the child with discipline; your god could stop the child by snapping his fingers. The mother will only be with her child for so long; your god will remain forever. Why does God need to teach anyone a lesson when he will always be able to moderate their actions?

And when you inevitably ask me “Don’t you want your free will? If God moderated our actions, we wouldn’t have free will.” I’ll say that, if I had to choose between free will and happiness, I’d choose happiness.

 

[tonyrey]

You believe that God is constrained in what kind of blueprint he can draw up.

I I do not believe God is constrained in what kind of blueprint he can draw up but once it is drawn up it has to be consistent. If any of its features are changed it will lose its order and regularity.

I take God’s omnipotence seriously.

It is probably impossible for our limited intelligence to know the full extent of omnipotence beyond obvious inconsistencies like eliminating coincidences, e.g. excluding collisions between physical objects.

You have used his work out of context to make it seem like he meant something other than what he did a couple different times.

That is your opinion.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I I do not believe God is constrained in what kind of blueprint he can draw up but once it is drawn up it has to be consistent. If any of its features are changed it will lose its order and regularity.

Right, but it can be set up with regular constraints preventing natural evils.

It is probably impossible for our limited intelligence to know the full extent of omnipotence beyond obvious inconsistencies like eliminating coincidences, e.g. excluding collisions between physical objects.

Of course. We cannot even begin to understand quite how powerful omnipotence truly is. You seem to think that omnipotence is extremely limited.

That is your opinion.

If you think I’m wrong, I’d be interested in hearing exactly why you think my interpretation is wrong. I did not think that his words were the slightest bit ambiguous. Certainly we can interpret words however we want, but Hume’s words were quite clear.

 

[alacoque]

JK - you wrote, in part: “God is completely and totally OTHER than me” - and, of course, you are completely correct in this, as you are in the other points you made. (you are a person of deep faith.)

And yet…I know you’ll agree that there’s another aspect, even more wonderful and mind-boggling, that is at the heart of our hearts!!

This most high God…truly, as you say, so ‘other’ from us - in kind and in nature - that it makes the gulf / chasm that exists between the highest archangel and the lowly earthworm seem like just a hair’s breadth – this God, so burns with love and so desires our love in return that His most amazing and awesome feat barely has words to adequately express it…

“Other” though He may be, He desires our love and presence so much, He loves us so much, so incomprehensibly, that He ‘bridged the chasm’ that should have been (and is, actually) infinite! Yes, He was / is OTHER…but He became one of us (in all but sin), taking on our nature and being incarnate in the human body, form and nature.

This would have been the ‘move of ages’, and enough to keep us busy with our minds blown forever, don’t you think? But, then He bears our sins; He heals us by HIS stripes; He suffers the weight of our transgressions as His example of what He really MEANS by Love!!

I know you know all this, so I’ll stop now…but I sure don’t know ‘how’ we come to understand something like that! Your faith, I believe, is a fruit of these actions of His…and gives a little light, anyway, into the ‘why’ of things…

God bless you…thank you for your faith and your expression of it. I will remember you in my prayers; please do the same for me. Thanks !!