Why is God so mean?

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*I’d say that guilt does more to subtract than add–it compels one to backpedal and take a detour. *

Yes, well I wish it had provoked Hitler to backpedal and take some detours.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yes, well I wish it had provoked Hitler to backpedal and take some detours.

As I said, it can be a very good thing for one to backpedal. I’m not denying that. I was just saying that it doesn’t add to one’s convictions, but rather subtracts negative convictions.

 

[4Horsemen]

Severn and '56, I wish you guys luck. Those two books and your trade-off read will only fuel your own fires of resistance to the other’s thinking. On the thought grounds you are on, I’m quite sure you will never be grounded in agreement. Your argumentative sweat is just resulting in the mud you are throwing at each other, and “mud thrown is ground lost.” It will be thus until you wake up and see you were never different from each other at ALL. And Severn, do take ‘56’ experience seriously. And '56, don’t take it so seriously; it is, after all, a great treasure for you, so don’t waste it as fuel for an argument.

Oreo, you don’t get what “he” means because you are an “agnostic theist,” not someone who has, I would guess, been in the (s)mothering embrace of the Church for some decades. It’s a Catholic joke, and at least Erma’s privileged readers got it. Mostly.

IMHO, an “agnostic theist” sounds like an oxymoron. But I suppose even believers need a shot of faith once in awhile. Wasn’t it Peter who said, “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” But, then again, that was before the Holy Spirit showed up in the Upper Room to dispel any doubts. As for me, my surety in the faith is because of an encounter with the H.S. (Maybe I’ll offer it sometime). Jesus said we must be baptized with water and the Spirit.

 

[Oreoracle]

Who said so? You? Why would anyone take your word for it, when they have their own experience to go by?

So if someone puts a gun to your head and says “Love me or die.” you could do it without any problem? Interestingly, this guy with a gun sounds less evil than your God–at least he’s not threatening eternal punishment.

 

[4Horsemen]

He also hovered in the air on a regular basis.

Now that’s something I didn’t know about St. Thomas, but I read about St. Joseph of Copertino’s experiences regarding same. Also, St. Mary Magdala (a nun during the Middle Ages, I think) was called the ecstatic saint because of falling into ectasy and being elevated which caused her great embarrassment but taught her humility at the same time.

I don’t think any saints EVER think of God as “mean.” We should emulate the saints.

 

[Oreoracle]

IMHO, an “agnostic theist” sounds like an oxymoron. But I suppose even believers need a shot of faith once in awhile. Wasn’t it Peter who said, “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” But, then again, that was before the Holy Spirit showed up in the Upper Room to dispel any doubts. As for me, my surety in the faith is because of an encounter with the H.S. (Maybe I’ll offer it sometime). Jesus said we must be baptized with water and the Spirit.

I’m an agnostic theist because I believe in what you might call a “higher power” (though that would be poor wording) but admit that there is no proof of this power. It is an actual term, so if you doubt what I say you can look it up.

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, and even the “straw” that we produce is Grace - a gift that was given to us and completely undeserved.

Yes, you are right on!

Here is a quote from St. Diadochos of Photike (ca. 400-ca. 486, a bishop in northern Greece, a mystic who emphasized the heart as well as the intellect. He wrote: On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination.

“When we stand out of doors in winter at dawn, facing the east, the front of our body is warmed by the sun, while the back is still cold because the sun is not on it. Similarly, the heart of those who are beginning to experience the Spirit’s energy is only partially warmed by God’s grace. While the mind begins to produce spiritual thoughts, since the members of the heart have not yet all become fully aware of the light of God’s grace shining upon them. But when we begin to carry out God’s commands with our whole heart, we become fully conscious of the light of grace. The flames of grace consume our thoughts; grace sweetens our heart in the peace of uninterrupted love; grace are always present in those who are approaching perfection and who constantly remember the Lord Jesus in their heart.”

 

[4Horsemen]

Why not go to the source? All else is hearsay.

The simplest answer is because my credo is “transcend and include.” That can be applied to almost any discipline or thought process but, being that we’re in CAF, we’re talking about religion and spirituality in this instance.

Notice that I didn’t say “transcend and exclude”, or “transcend and throw away”, or “transcend and tell others that they’re misguided and will burn in hell for eternity if they don’t hold to my particular belief system.”

I think the main difference in our positions is that I respect your belief system and honor whatever path you’re on, having been there myself. Your belief system is included in whatever belief system I might hold at the time; I don’t exclude it. I’ve learned other things in other disciplines that have been rolled up in a similar way.

Can you honestly say the same? From what I’ve seen, you believe in one thing, and in one way only, with one and only one absolute authority, and all others are wrong, misguided, evil… or whatever you may choose to judge about them at the time. It is fine and well for you to hold your beliefs and to think as you choose to think, but I wouldn’t suggest that your position is inclusive of other peoples’ belief systems; it’s rather exclusive. If you disagree, then I’d love to hear how you think my statement is contrary to how you conduct your life.

I may well be wrong. I don’t know you very well… just the structure, with which I’m rather intimately familiar.

I hope that this answers your question.

So, One, if your belief system includes mine, then you must incorporate all the doctrines and morality of my belief system. Right?

True, mine doesn’t include yours. Your response to “Religion” is “none.” How does nothing encompass anything and everything? Now that’s a conundrum!

 

[4Horsemen]

Very, very cool, 4! Now understand who “His” properly refers to in your sentence about Augustin’s realization, and you will understand why One’s standpoint includes yours, but not the other way around, as you stand now. The answer is closer than you know. Take the straw and spin, Christina,* spin! Where/What is the Center? You don’t need a Rumplestiltskin to tell you His name, though you will not be able to say it. Now you think you know it, but then you will understand, and graciously and involuntarily already include christainists, atheists, et al. Far fetched? Not at ALL.

*Isn’t that name a blessed coincidence?!?!?!

Gosh, Detales, I feel like I’m on a quiz show! “The answer is closer than you know,” you said. (Who’s Christina? The gal who could spin straw into gold???) “Where/What is the Center?” I’ll answer that! God/I AM WHO AM/IS is the Center, Source and Summit of our lives and of the universe.

Why won’t I be able to say His name? I just did. See above.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*However, I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what this “something more” is. In fact (and I think One would agree), this “something more” can more accurately be described from our relative perspective as “something less”. *

Do you think there is a god who chooses to keep us completely in the dark (isn’t that what an agnostic theist would be?) That is, why would this god go to the bother of creating the universe and then not want us to know a thing about him, except perhaps the hunch that he must exist, as you seem to have.

Isn’t there more mystery here than in all the Catholic mysteries combined?

 

[4Horsemen]

Good morning, jk.

I was wondering something about your experience…

We, as humans, are creatures crafted by many forces. Sure, it all came from God/Spirit/IS/Void of course, but from the moment we’re born (and certainly even before), we are shaped by all manner of influences and pressures, from mothers boozing while we’re in the womb, to the precise circumstances of our birth, family influences and interactions, schooling, church, social influences, environmental pressures… well, the list is quite long, right?. Each influence or experience leaves some sort of a trace in us, and each of us could be said to be the sum total of our experiences (with no two totals identical, which leads to the myriad type of people we encounter.)

Do you think it’s possible for someone to have a peak experience – an epiphany if you’d prefer – and then to translate that experience through the lens of their personal perspective?

I feel that not only is is possible, it is what occurs. I wonder if you’d agree?

I gather that you had a significant and profound peak experience, and that is not to be taken lightly. These experiences, if we’re graced to have them, guide and shape the rest of our lives. Once seen, they are never forgotten. I understand this quite well.

What might happen if someone had one of these peak experiences, but they were raised in India? If they were raised Hindu, they might (and probably will) translate this experience as a comm/union with Lord Krishna. A Buddhist might see and conjoin with a mental image of Shakyamuni himself. A Zen practitioner will likely experience a vast, empty, yet full, Awareness. A Sufi might suggest that he experienced oneness with the Prophet Mohammed. Perhaps a ‘primitive’ living in the jungle had a peak experience and relates his experience by telling his friends about the Great Monkey God. All of them, I’m absolutely sure, were graced by a sudden revelation that is deep, profound, meaningful,and vitally, vitally important.

We cannot avoid our conditioning, and we cannot help but translate our experiences using whatever framework with which we see the world and our reality. (That is, if we say anything about it at all! )

At the heart of it all, I sense that these ‘personal experiences’ all point to or reveal the same thing (/no-thing); what differs is the clothing that we put on the experience, what it means to us individually, and how we tell the story of that experience. I am quite delighted that you’ve incorporated your experience so strongly into your life, letting it guide you as it will. You’re very strong in your convictions, which I find refreshing in light of the number of other people who, having not had a similar experience, follow with blind faith what someone else has said. I think it would be a good thing to understand what we do with these experiences once we have them.

And here’s to the next one… and the next one…

Although this post isn’t directed to me, One, if you don’t mind, I’d just like to comment
on the idea of having an “ephiphany.” It actually happened to me three times when I was apart from God. The first one was very vivid and gave me a strong sensation that I don’t have to follow anybody’s rules but my own “higher morality.” Nowadays, I think it proceeded, not from God and His Goodness, but from the evil one. It gave me a feeling of pride. St. Teresa of Avila stressed that false apparitions, which she had at times (remember the devil can appear as an “angel of light”) gave her this prideful feeling.

Also, I had an incredible conversion experience with “signs and wonders”, so my belief is not merely based on authoritative pronouncements that I follow without reason or desire.

God bless,
4

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle

*However, I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what this “something more” is. In fact (and I think One would agree), this “something more” can more accurately be described from our relative perspective as “something less”. *

Do you think there is a god who chooses to keep us completely in the dark (isn’t that what an agnostic theist would be?) That is, why would this god go to the bother of creating the universe and then not want us to know a thing about him, except perhaps the hunch that he must exist, as you seem to have.

Isn’t there more mystery here than in all the Catholic mysteries combined?

I don’t believe there exists a conscious god that makes decisions regarding the universe, nor did I mean to imply that a god must exist. I’m rather leaning toward the Buddhist notion that we are all binded together by a common essence (thus, there is a “higher power” than myself). Even a god would be unable to escape, or perceive, this binding force. One is much better at explaining this than I, but I don’t want to make a chore of this (especially since this is not the kind of thread to discuss my “religious” beliefs ).

Is there more mystery to it? Certainly. It is a much more humble philosophy not grounded in assumptions, but direct experience (see Zen Buddhism).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

I was just saying that it doesn’t add to one’s convictions,…

Guilt does add to one’s convictions, since one stands self-convicted!

*So if someone puts a gun to your head and says “Love me or die.” you could do it without any problem? Interestingly, this guy with a gun sounds less evil than your God–at least he’s not threatening eternal punishment. *

I think you know very well this is not Pascal’s argument. Pascal’s argument is based on the conviction (which you of all people should appreciate) that by the light of reason alone we cannot know for sure whether there is a God. It is better, then, to believe, and give God the benefit of the doubt, than to commit the possible sin of spitting in God’s face by denying that He exists, and by thus choosing forever to be absent His presence in a Hell of our own choosing.

 

[Detales]

Re the wonderful quote from On Spiritual Knowledge and Discrimination: It is exactly why my Mentor often said “View *out from *the Star, not up to it!” It would be fascinating to do a read trade with St. Diadochos book and Adi Sankara’s The Crown Jewel of Discrimination. Trade or not, I will try to find St D’s work.

Sorry to sound like a quiz show, but that is a matter of perspective. Yes, “Christina” is indeed the name of the Queen who traded her child for spun gold, but was saved at the last moment by someone who told her the name of the little man. I’m only saying that we have to spin our own gold. Like the alchemists who attempted to turn lead into gold, the whole matter is a question of transformation. This has been known for ages and across cultures. It is the fundamental dynamic inherent in the Nature of Man. And what is at the center of Man? It is for the most part completely discounted as the doorway to understanding. Those who have done it as members of the Church have done so, IMHO, largely despite its teaching, not because of it. “Christina” in this story could be the raised feminine or intuitive ability that leads us to the understanding of the Nature of Sonship.

In this regard I am adding my consensus to what One outlined as the way we tend to superimpose our parochial education on a universal experience. It was my own NDE that led me to the experience of “accommodate and assimilate,” as '56 put it. Unlike him, though, I did not find that my experience was accommodated by Church teaching, and I am forever grateful that I went “outside” to discover what had happened to me. I had to. “Me” no longer had any relevance to what I thought “me” was. The word “I” as well took on a radically different significance. Neither perspective was accounted for in practical terms by the Faith. On the other hand, they were completely and accurately accounted for in another system. As an outcome of my growth in understanding in that Way, I was able to reconcile my vision with the Church that I had, befoere that point, totally dismissed. I came to see how the Church was, though in an occluded form, in agreement with the much clearer, pristine Teaching I had discovered though my dissatisfaction with what I then saw as the unnecessary convolutions of Church teaching.

As a verification of this, a wide study of the NDE phenomenon yielded this interesting datum: All NDEers have from one, to all seven of certain definable factors in their experience. That part is Universal. But all NDEers describe their experience according to the verbiage and dynamics of their birth religion, lack, or modification of it. So, we can either take the position that what we parochially believe is indeed the one, true, and only way to account for this, or we might more usefully ascertain that there is a Reality that is a substrate to all faiths that has been necessarily adapted to the conditions of time, culture, geophysical circumstances, original mythology, etc. of various peoples.

In addition to this, we have the phenomenon of spontaneous or arrived at realization. The men and women who experience that kind of vision are remarkably consistent in the delineation of their experience, despite disparity in time, space, culture, intelligence, status, and previous faith affiliation or lack of it. Also they are very unlikely to know of each other, that tending to eliminate collusion. Again, that would support the assertion that there is a basic underlying Reality independent of religious, philosophical, scientific, or conjectural systems of belief or thought.

Since these assertions of a fundamental substrate of Reality include another dimension of awareness that is usually non-linear and exclusive of the usual subject/object mode of perception that most people claim is the only way we can be, it is reasonable, again, that since it is said (in “our” system) that we are “made in the image and likeness of God” that this other mode might have something to do with that. Whew. Long sentence, but its musical structure is sound.

But the commonality at the root (radical) of such perceptions with experiencers who have other superimposed cultural ways of accounting still leads us to believe that there must be something independent and before our limited accounting systems, even of Faith, that this experience rightfully belongs to.

Indeed, this was my own particular experience and conclusion when I discovered that everything I thought was “me” turned out to be a superimposition over what I suddenly understood as “I.” That feeling “I” is the individuated link, called Soul, to the Divine, and when clearly percieved yields such statements of recognition as “I AM THAT’” “Atman is Brahman,” “I and the Father are One,” “There is no way to the Father but through what I AM” (mistranslated “me.”) “I have not been deceived!” “The scales have fallen from my eyes and I SEE,” “I AM the Eagle,” etc, etc, according to the verbiage learned and necessarily used by the realizer.

That understanding necessarily includes any faith, philosophy, science, whatever, because all those are seen summarily to stem from one uncontradictable Source of Being, whatever IT may be called or however it might be accounted for in thought. All interpretations and explanations and beliefs regarding that source are pale shadows, as '56knows, of the actuality and fundamental Nature of Divine Substance, with or without its manifestation. Yet here “we” are, graciously and lovingly included, whether denying, acknowledging, or misperceiving the actuality of the happening.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle

I was just saying that it doesn’t add to one’s convictions,…

Guilt does add to one’s convictions, since one stands self-convicted!

*So if someone puts a gun to your head and says “Love me or die.” you could do it without any problem? Interestingly, this guy with a gun sounds less evil than your God–at least he’s not threatening eternal punishment. *

I think you know very well this is not Pascal’s argument. Pascal’s argument is based on the conviction (which you of all people should appreciate) that by the light of reason alone we cannot know for sure whether there is a God. It is better, then, to believe, and give God the benefit of the doubt, than to commit the possible sin of spitting in God’s face by denying that He exists, and by thus choosing forever to be absent His presence in a Hell of our own choosing.

You’re right that it’s not the Wager–it’s a refutation of the Wager. You know it’s ridiculous to say that I can will myself to love another (especially when that other is an oppressive tyrant).

And again, the Wager presents a false dichotomy. The choices are not limited to “Catholic god” or “no Catholic god”. There are other theoretical gods and possibilities to be calculated. There are thousands of choices, not two.

 

[Detales]

4, I would caution you that “pride” was not inherent in the apperitions or experiences either you or the good Saint had. That “pride” is something that you did with your mind regarding inaccurate and personalized conclusions made from the experienence. This is why there is a disparity in having a realization and in maintaining it. It is also where a competent Teacher, Guide, or Friend is invaluable. It is the very shenanigans of the mind, as you experienced them, I would hazzard to guess, that occlude the significance of such an experience and tend to diminish it to not only to uselssnes, but to such a negative conotaton as you have placed on it by natural egoic propensity. These experiences refer to, and are part of, growth in awarenss to the trans-personal. That is why pride entered in. you made it a matter of personal acheivement instead of taking it for an insight into Being as such. Speaking from experience, it seems so to me.

Also, “apart from God” is an impossibility except as a matter of personal perception, never as an actality.

 

[SimonArizona]

I have found God to be loving-kindness and sweet, lavishly rich to my soul. It is eating the fruit of my own ways that is bitter and cruel.

 

[4Horsemen]

I know it’s not a new argument. I just don’t think it’s ever been satisfactorily resolved. Even when I read top modern theologians, their answers seem incomplete.

Here, at last, we agree.

Where we don’t agree is that in not being able to find all the answers as to why God created the world as it is, we dismiss God. The Catholic faith is full of mysteries, and if you don’t like not being able to reduce every mystery to a logical solution, you should probably not only stay away from the Catholic Church, but you should stay away from science too. Yet you have faith in science, don’t you? You have faith that Reason is the be-all and end-all of our existence. Catholics are also believers in rationality, and from Roger Bacon to Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel and George LeMaitre, to name just a few, Catholics have championed the use of reason to solve scientific problems. But science is not the only avenue to knowledge.

This is where so many moderns are locked in and cannot seem to break out. There is something beyond science. That something is approachable in every way: through music, painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and most of all … through holiness. Scientism, however, is locked up inside its own little box and cannot see what is outside the box. Even Darwin, in his last years, said he wished he had read more poetry and listened to more music. This is an admission that science at last had left him dry and thirsting for more.

It is ironic that the Modernists (Scientism and other -isms) are the ones inside the box, but they see Believers as being in the box. I had this discussion with someone on another forum a while back. I referred to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” from The Republic and said the Modernists were like the people in the cave, whose world was images and vague shadows not objective truth. No one can see anyone else only the shadows cast upon the wall from a fire in the distance. When an individual breaks free, at first the light is blinding and he is unable to see, but after a time he sees, for the first time, the real world. Ideas, being eternal, and unchangeable, are outside space and time.

The Modernists are like the prisoners in the allegory who watch shadows on the wall and miss the substance, the reality of true vision.

 

[4Horsemen]

4, I would caution you that “pride” was not inherent in the apperitions or experiences either you or the good Saint had. That “pride” is something that you did with your mind regarding inaccurate and personalized conclusions made from the experienence. This is why there is a disparity in having a realization and in maintaining it. It is also where a competent Teacher, Guide, or Friend is invaluable. It is the very shenanigans of the mind, as you experienced them, I would hazzard to guess, that occlude the significance of such an experience and tend to diminish it to not only to uselssnes, but to such a negative conotaton as you have placed on it by natural egoic propensity. These experiences refer to, and are part of, growth in awarenss to the trans-personal. That is why pride entered in. you made it a matter of personal acheivement instead of taking it for an insight into Being as such. Speaking from experience, it seems so to me.

Also, “apart from God” is an impossibility except as a matter of personal perception, never as an actality.

I must agree with you, Detales, that a “competent Teacher, Guide, or Friend is invaluable.” St. Teresa of Avila, as well as many saints in the mystical realm especially, prayed for spiritual directors who could guide them on the path of mysticism and find union with God–our whole purpose in life.

Pridefulness leads us away from our true goal. We can find the trinitarian God, the Three in One, in GOODNESS, TRUTH and BEAUTY (as pointed out by Charlemagne II).

 

[Detales]

“When an individual breaks free, at first the light is blinding and he is unable to see, but after a time he sees, for the first time, the real world. Ideas, being eternal, and unchangeable, are outside space and time.” ~~4 How true!

“…union with God–our whole purpose in life” ~~4 Also true, about as well as most can say it in English.

“competent Teacher, Guide, or Friend is invaluable.” ~~4 Yes, prayed for arduously and recieved.

WOW! We agree!

Now tell me: What includes both the cave and the real world, without distinction? (Answers “How does nothing encompass anything and everything? Now that’s a conundrum!,” at least from this perspective.)

---