Celebrate Religion here
Quote: FrGambleQuick little story to share. Was walking out of the funeral home tonight and a young man smoking a cigarette stopped me and said, "Do you really believe in all that God stuff?" I could tell he was pretty emotional so I walked over and put a hand of his sholder and said something to the effect of, "Its pretty obvious that God exists, that there is a creator of all this stuff around us and life." Then I don't know where it came from but I said, "The real question I bet you and a lot of people are asking is does God care? Does God love us? Does belief in God really matter? To that ultimate and real question I really believe with all my heart the answer is yes." He stomped out his cigarette and without a word gave me a hug and went inside.
Don't know what that silent hug meant but I thought it was a pretty cool moment.
When you say it's "obvious" that a god exists (as obvious as space being Euclidean), you betray yourself right there, showing how truly childish the idea is. A little child can see the world in a constant state of decay, and what fixes that decay? Adults. The universe is not yet in the utmost disarray, so what kept it from that? Mega-adult!
And yet, when the universe is examined on its own terms, what's seen is an ineffable barrage of equations, not all of which are or can be known, but which do not seem subject to the caprice of even the most staid mind. To posit anything that can be called a "god" is to say that the universe is subject to the whims of some mind, let's not kid ourselves, some superhuman mind, whose ways are similar to the gods that were once dreamt up by those who did not have the wherewithal to examine the universe more thoroughly. Slowly he is divorced from them, as greater understanding forces him higher and higher above Olympus' peak, but that superhumanity is still ascribed to the universe, a vestige of those primitive days.
If there were a god, your monitor would not work. That god would send down lightning when he pleased, and not allow it to be summoned at your whims to make a lightshow. If there were a god, no medicine could take effect. The phlogiston in you would function as God pleased, and not in a predictable fashion at the introduction of chemicals or other agents. If there were a god, planes would not fly. His great apparatus of buoyancy would not be subject to the whims of feeble human attempts to grow wings, but only to his own designs.
"Ah," the apologist says, "you don't understand - the LORD found it to His liking to set the rules of the universe, so that we could study and understand them." But does he himself ever break these rules? Of course he does, if the Bible's to be believed, or the Quran, or any other holy text, down to the meanest hagiography. Just, not when anyone not already a believer is watching, and somehow, the more people in a position to verify the saints' miracles, the more meager they become. So to anyone not inclined to believe, they seem unbreakable, glory to his majesty when, we're assured, he broke the rules of his own design. Some design you have to break every so often to get it working.
But what about the deists' god, the ancient watchmaker? What is he? A "he," to begin with. Let's ignore the ancient question of what if anything would make an incorporeal being male or female - that's secondary. Rather, what makes that god, or any antecedent, not an "it"? Personhood. What's personhood? We define it in the material world, i.e., the real world, as having some sort of apparatus similar in a quality we can't yet define to the human brain, in the brain of some other animal, in a computer's processor, or in some other arrangement of matter somewhere else in the universe. We may not be able to define it, but we are clear when we talk about a computer that is not intelligent: it only performs some few relatively simple tasks, and does nothing else. But isn't that all we can say the watchmaker ever did?
So what characteristics remain for the mega-adult? A universal nous, matterless and itself uncreated, that itself acts only according to a few basic principles that do not and cannot change. A giant, uncreated computer on wires of quintessence, following a simple program whose source decompiled by Laplace's demon would begin "void universe()." Well, if that's God, there's only one thing I can say.
Hallelujah!
Except when God uses the fifth force, Magic to override any or all of the other four forces. Sometimes God gives His powers to others when it suits Him, like He did in Job when God gave some of His magical powers to Satan to help settle a bet (Job 1:12) or to Elisha to summon two female bears to murder 42 children (2 Kings 2:24) or even to Jesus for the purposes of murdering a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season (Matthew 21:19). Sometimes He just uses the Magical force all on His own to destroy the Earth (Genesis 7:4).
Men have been trying to harness the Fifth force, Magic, since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden in Missouri (D&C Section 57) all those years ago. Despite all of our attempts to even discover the Magic field (which then must have a Magic particle), all we've been able to come up with is a Higgs boson and some lame platitudes about love.
Quote: s2dbaker
Except when God uses the fifth force, Magic
The fifth force is women. They can make us do almost
anything, no matter how ridiculous.
Quote: 24BingoSo what characteristics remain for the mega-adult? A universal nous, matterless and itself uncreated, that itself acts only according to a few basic principles that do not and cannot change. A giant, uncreated computer on wires of quintessence, following a simple program whose source decompiled by Laplace's demon would begin "void universe()." Well, if that's God, there's only one thing I can say.
Hallelujah!
As your post brings us to consider the deist, watchmaker, or the vague nous idea of God you show that indeed this type of "god" is self-evident. It is the old 'something can't come from nothing' logical truth. However, if we leave the concept of God there as an impersonal simple program or indifferent watchmaker than I would not say "Alleluia" I would say, "Who cares?"
Why even talk about God if we only believe it to be some incomphrensible force that created the universe and all that exists, but couldn't care less what happens afterwards. In fact as WongBo brought up and EvenBob mentions this concept of "god" is worse than deserving our indifference but would lead us rather to a sense of dislike. What type of poor watchmaker would make a world that has so many problems and then leave us purposeless and without help or love throughout our journey of life? Yes, your Hallelujah is misplaced and disgusting if that is the type of "god" you want.
The only type of God I could ever believe in is a God who will not leave us subject to this broken world but helps us live in it. A God who helps us to find purpose and meaning to our existence and our actions. A God who loves us and encourages us to love others. Finally, a God who forgives sin and conquers even death so that we truly have a real reason to say, "Hallelujah!" "He Is Risen!"
Quote: s2dbakerGod created the five fundamental forces of the Universe. The first four, Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Weak force and the Strong force have strict rules that shall not ever be broken except:
Except when God uses the fifth force, Magic to override any or all of the other four forces. Sometimes God gives His powers to others when it suits Him, like He did in Job when God gave some of His magical powers to Satan to help settle a bet (Job 1:12) or to Elisha to summon two female bears to murder 42 children (2 Kings 2:24) or even to Jesus for the purposes of murdering a fig tree because it wasn't bearing fruit out of season (Matthew 21:19). Sometimes He just uses the Magical force all on His own to destroy the Earth (Genesis 7:4).
Men have been trying to harness the Fifth force, Magic, since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden in Missouri (D&C Section 57) all those years ago. Despite all of our attempts to even discover the Magic field (which then must have a Magic particle), all we've been able to come up with is a Higgs boson and some lame platitudes about love.
s2dbaker, don't believe everything you read. Somethings you also want to read more figuratively, like the author intended. Other things should be read in context. Finally, some things you should read as the Gospel Truth. The Bible is full of all of these different types of writing and you can really get yourself in trouble if you read it all literally.
Quote: EvenBobBut god is the universe. God is behind everything.
I wonder if God was at Auschwitz?
same way he is sitting around while 40,000 children die of starvation EVERY DAY
can you feel the love?
Quote: rxwineI wonder if God was at Auschwitz?
A zen master would say: War is an exercise
on the way to enlightenment.
A Christian minister would say: God's love is
not always apparent. Translation: I have no
idea whats going on.
Quote: FrGambles2dbaker, don't believe everything you read.
i am sorry to say it, but this takes the cake for the most ironic thing i have ever heard.
a priest telling someone not to believe everything they read?
not meaning to be overly critical or offensive here, just sayin..
Quote: WongBoi am sorry to say it, but this takes the cake for the most ironic thing i have ever heard.
a priest telling someone not to believe everything they read?
not meaning to be overly critical or offensive here, just sayin..
not offensive at all WongBo, there are a lot of stuff out there I would tell someone not to believe. There are even parts of the Bible such as the Job story that is obviously written as a type of morality play or poetry, just like one of my favorite books of the Bible Tobit. I would not take these books literally because they were never meant to. It is like taking the fiction of Dan Brown literally.
Now in the case of the Biblical stories (not so much in Dan Brown) there are truths to be learned and believed that come from those works that are not less true because the characters or circumstances are not.
Quote: WongBooh of course he was,
same way he is sitting around while 40,000 children die of starvation EVERY DAY
can you feel the love?
Now I don't want to overly offensive or critical but it seems like for some their notion of God is more like a superhero. Somehow God's love is not there or He is not present when there is suffering or evil. That understanding of God sounds more like Superman and I for one don't believe in Superman. It sounds like some are saying if God was here or real there wouldn't be any suffering and all the plans of the evil guys would all be foiled. If that was the case we could also ask: Where was God at the crucifixion of Jesus?
I was about to say the same-ish thing but you put it a lot better than I could. I was just going to say that for someone who's career choice is ostensibly based on the contents of a bible, I find it funny that FrGamble just told me not to believe some of the stuff that's in it. This brings up an interesting topic. If we're not to believe everything that's in your bible, then who gets to decide what's fact and what's fiction? A man? Perhaps a committee of men? Certainly not any broads (1 Timothy 2:12). What if there's another committee that comes up with a different opinion on what's fact and what's fiction? Which god is then the correct god to worship (or more accurately, which committee is more deserving of my money)?Quote: WongBoi am sorry to say it, but this takes the cake for the most ironic thing i have ever heard.
a priest telling someone not to believe everything they read?
not meaning to be overly critical or offensive here, just sayin..
Quote: FrGambleSomehow God's love is not there or He is not present when there is suffering or evil. That understanding of God sounds more like Superman and I for one don't believe in Superman.
I'd say it sounds more like Exodus. Consider:
1) God, through very unpleasant means, gets Pharaoh to release the Jews from Egypt.
2) When Pharaoh changes hi mind and leads his army to bring the Jews back, God smites the Egyptians by drowning them in the Red Sea.
3) Throughout the Hebrews' journey home across the desert, God provides shade, food and light.
4) When some people rebel against God's authority, God proceeds to direct the Earth to swallow them.
5) Upon finding the home they abandoned occupied by someone else, God stops the Sun to allow Joshua's forces better battlefield conditions.
But there's similar stuff in Genesis, too, like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, saving Isaac's life, giving directions to Abraham and Jacob, etc, etc.
Why shouldn't a believer expect God to take care of things like genocide?
Quote:If that was the case we could also ask: Where was God at the crucifixion of Jesus?
As I understand it, since God=Jesus and God <> Jesus, then he was there and not there. In any case, since both could work miracles the question to ask is: why he/they chose martyrdom. The answer is simple.
Quote: FrGambleI think you should re-read my earlier post again Bob. Love is still present even in the face of horrible tragedy. You would never doubt or question the love of a parent who just lost their child to this senseless violence, I don't see why you would doubt God's love either?
But I would use my 'love' if I had the power, to protect those I love, not let them perish at a madman's hand. What is the purpose of God's 'love' if it cannot even match that of a human's? No religious person has ever been able to explain to me why the all powerful, all benevolent deity would allow that kind of tragedy.
Quote: s2dbakerThis brings up an interesting topic. If we're not to believe everything that's in your bible, then who gets to decide what's fact and what's fiction?
That is an interesting topic and an important question. I guess the first thing to make sure we all agree on is that there needs to be some authority to decide what type of genre this text is and in what ways to interpret it (historical, allegorical, literally, spiritual,...). If we didn't have any authority we could all read it some different way and come up with all types of diverse and crazy things as you have aptly demonstrated. So if we are to have some authority what characteristics would you think it should posses to help us understand the true meaning of God's Word?
I would suggest perhaps a god or goddess that isn't so shy that he and/or she feels that he and/or she has to drop an incomprehensible book of stories on the land and then expect everyone to figure it out for him and/or her. That's a characteristic that I'm willing to start with.Quote: FrGambleSo if we are to have some authority what characteristics would you think it should posses to help us understand the true meaning of God's Word?
Quote: SOOPOOBut I would use my 'love' if I had the power, to protect those I love, not let them perish at a madman's hand. What is the purpose of God's 'love' if it cannot even match that of a human's? No religious person has ever been able to explain to me why the all powerful, all benevolent deity would allow that kind of tragedy.
What makes a human's love so inferior to this magic type of "god" love that takes away all our problems you seem to want? Again sure Superman can save us and swoop down and solve all our problems, but is that really the highest form of love? We might adore or worship this display of power but is it really love or perfect love?
My human love may not have the power to protect those I love but that doesn't weaken it. In fact it may cause us to give ourselves even more to the point of dying for the other. Jesus once said, "There is no greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." This is something your conception of a magic or super god can't do. Superman's love is limited, not a human's. This is why it always seems like in our superhero stories there needs to come a point where the hero lays down his life in sacrifice. Batman, Spiderman, Superman, etc. its always just "the greatest story ever told" represented in new costumes.
God became one of us human beings precisely to show us how to love. To love so completely that it requires of us sacrifice and giving up of ourselves. There is no greater love than this and it is this love that leads to resurrection and the ultimate defeat of evil, suffering, and death.
Quote: FrGambleThat is an interesting topic and an important question. I guess the first thing to make sure we all agree on is that there needs to be some authority to decide what type of genre this text is and in what ways to interpret it (historical, allegorical, literally, spiritual,...).
Begging the question of who gets to decide what's canon and what isn't, and what authority they make those decisions under. Every time I see this "how do you know which of the commands in the Bible are supposed to apply to us today" question raised, I wonder if it isn't perhaps missing a greater point, that being, how do you know that the human beings who decided which books went into the Bible and which books didn't were themselves infallible? If it is presupposed that, being human, they were not infallible, must we also consider all apocrypha? Was Martin Luther more inspired than Athanasius of Alexandria, or less so? The two certainly disagreed on which books merited inclusion (hence the difference in composition of Protestant and Catholic Bibles). Can anyone say with certainty that one of those two men was right, and the other wrong?
I've tried hard to stay out of these religious threads. I think that religion can be an extremely positive force in the lives of individuals, but I passionately believe that religion should be a personal thing. I think that it is immensely saddening to have to cheapen it to the point where it can be discussed in human language, and almost always without any benefit aside from allowing both parties to an argument to each walk away convinced of their own having been right all along.
I saw a piece of graffiti in a women's restroom at a library. It said, "What if the first rule of Christianity were the same as the first rule of Fight Club?" I feel like that question should be asked regarding any religious belief system. And, like with betting systems, I feel like no system that you can buy premade will provide you with anywhere near the enjoyment of a system that you develop yourself, and sincerely doubt that the benefits of the off-the-rack model could exceed those of the user-created variety.
Okay, I think I said everything that I wanted to.
heather/ backs slowly out of the thread
Quote: s2dbakerI would suggest perhaps a god or goddess that isn't so shy that he and/or she feels that he and/or she has to drop an incomprehensible book of stories on the land and then expect everyone to figure it out for him and/or her. That's a characteristic that I'm willing to start with.
Great, as we have already determined it would not be good for God to expect everyone to just figure it out for themselves. I agree and think that God did give us help through the Church, the very same institution that collected all of these stories and histories and letters over time into what we now call the Bible. It's kind of like trusting the author of the book to tell us the meaning rather than a bunch of people discussing it in chat rooms or gambling forums.
Quote: FrGambleSomehow God's love is not there or He is not present when there is suffering or evil.
What a selling point for your religion. God: He's never
there when you need him. Might as well worship the
tree in the backyard, he never delivers either.
Quote: FrGambleAs your post brings us to consider the deist, watchmaker, or the vague nous idea of God you show that indeed this type of "god" is self-evident. It is the old 'something can't come from nothing' logical truth. However, if we leave the concept of God there as an impersonal simple program or indifferent watchmaker than I would not say "Alleluia" I would say, "Who cares?"
Why even talk about God if we only believe it to be some incomphrensible force that created the universe and all that exists, but couldn't care less what happens afterwards. In fact as WongBo brought up and EvenBob mentions this concept of "god" is worse than deserving our indifference but would lead us rather to a sense of dislike. What type of poor watchmaker would make a world that has so many problems and then leave us purposeless and without help or love throughout our journey of life? Yes, your Hallelujah is misplaced and disgusting if that is the type of "god" you want.
The only type of God I could ever believe in is a God who will not leave us subject to this broken world but helps us live in it. A God who helps us to find purpose and meaning to our existence and our actions. A God who loves us and encourages us to love others. Finally, a God who forgives sin and conquers even death so that we truly have a real reason to say, "Hallelujah!" "He Is Risen!"
It always amazes me how the internalized anathema of unbelief can draw a black curtain over irony and counterfactuals, over the very fact that the god I want is as irrelevant as that you want, just as our desires will be irrelevant when inevitably and indisputably our meat, believer and infidel alike, is rendered by the forces to which it like everything else in the universe is subject a soulless, decaying mass. If love is to fix us in an indifferent matrix of forces which he breaks only to provide scant evidence of his existence, only to a select few throughout history, specifically saying he wishes not to be understood so that he has plenty of souls to cast into Gehenna, there is no greater saint than a serial killer. Yet, everything we have seen of love shows us clearly that it is a function of the human brain, or some analogue of matter, so even such a vicious kind of love escapes any god that could exist, since where would such a god come from? While I'm glad to see you've been reading your Lucretius, an exception must be made, either for a god or for the universe, and the universe is real.
What you fail to acknowledge, from the part of the mind that faith is designed to whittle bloodily away at, is that there is a difference between reality and belief, or LSD would be invaluable in any emergency kit. The Jah in Hallelujah is - whatever anyone believes, from the Ayatollah to Dr. Banjo - the idiot Azathoth whom you so hate, who cannot understand. So why even talk about god indeed? Why talk about the god who has fixed the rules of the universe in a way that only gives rise to humanity in a small pocket of statistical extremes, indifferent to their continued existence, allowing himself to break them for whatever reason only when no one, or at least no one with a recording device and no one not utterly mad against whose interest it runs to report it, is watching? Why talk about the mindless being who watches with blind eyes? Why not just deal with the universe's responses to stimuli under all circumstances but those extremes of unverifiability? Or rather, in a word: reality?
Quote: FrGambleThere are even parts of the Bible such as the Job story that is obviously written as a type of morality play or poetry, just like one of my favorite books of the Bible Tobit. I would not take these books literally because they were never meant to.
I must admit that I never knew this was the Catholic position. May I ask if that all holds for:
1. Garden of Eden story.
2. Noah's ark story.
3. Jonah and the whale story.
4. Parting of the Red Sea story.
Father, Catholicism wins points in my books for having an open mind that the bible is not to be taken literally 100% of the time. However, I'm sure the more conservative Protestants would not agree.
Quote: FrGamble
My human love may not have the power to protect those I love but that doesn't weaken it.
Right. But that's not the question at hand. If you did have the power to end the suffering of someone you really love (as God, obviously does, being Omnipotent), but still chose not to act, and continued to passively observe, would that in your view be a sufficient reason for some to doubt if you really love that someone as much as you say you do?
would be essentially like the kid hovering over the anthill with the magnifying glass.
watching with glee as they write and suffer.
there is no love involved
We're talking about the Hindus here or did I miss something?Quote: FrGambleGreat, as we have already determined it would not be good for God to expect everyone to just figure it out for themselves. I agree and think that God did give us help through the Church, the very same institution that collected all of these stories and histories and letters over time into what we now call the Bible. It's kind of like trusting the author of the book to tell us the meaning rather than a bunch of people discussing it in chat rooms or gambling forums.
Quote: FrGambleI agree and think that God did give us help through the Church, the very same institution that collected all of these stories and histories and letters over time into what we now call the Bible.
First the story of Job is not to be taken literally and now the bible is just a collection of stories and letters assembled by the church. I had no idea the Catholic church was so liberal on these matters. This is very refreshing.
Quote: WizardFirst the story of Job is not to be taken literally and now the bible is just a collection of stories and letters assembled by the church. I had no idea the Catholic church was so liberal on these matters. This is very refreshing.
Yes and no. The Church can't deny the Bible was put
together by them, its a historical fact. They put the
modern Bible together at The Council of Nicaea in
325 AD. They threw out all the letters and books
that didn't agree with where they wanted the Church
to head, namely, that Jesus was divine. Thats why
all these other books are floating around that didn't
make it into the Bible.
Its all rather pretentious and silly. Whats in the
Bible is True and Holy only because all these
old dudes at Nicaea with an agenda said they
were. The rest of the stuff they didn't select
was proclaimed blastphemy, of course. Much
of it makes far better reading than anything in
the Bible does. The book of Thomas, for instance.
Many religions are like the saying about sausage.
Just accept it as it is, don't go into the kitchen
and see how it was made. You'll never eat it again..
Quote: SOOPOOBut I would use my 'love' if I had the power, to protect those I love, not let them perish at a madman's hand. What is the purpose of God's 'love' if it cannot even match that of a human's? No religious person has ever been able to explain to me why the all powerful, all benevolent deity would allow that kind of tragedy.
Something about this comment struck me, and for a moment, I'm going to do a rare thing indeed and hop to the pro-god side. /hop
Huh. Feels the same over here. Anyways...
I've often toyed with the idea that life is connected, that the human is no better (or worse) than the deer, than the fish, than the ant, than the tree, than the amoeba, than the bacteria. That each and every thing which bears life is both incredibly insignificant as well as being absolutely miraculous. Part of that thought coupled with SOOPOO's post made me think of something.
Perhaps it is not "you" or "me" that god loves, maybe it's "us". In other words, it's not humans, but humanity. If we are created in his image, I suspect we must be similar, so I offer this analogy. My Pops loves me, this I know, and I him. But in my upbringing, he didn't shield me from every ill and harm that came my way. Of course he wouldn't let me simply perish, but if, after warning, I still wanted to do something dumb, well, he let me do it. And when I busted ass, he'd give me the "told you so" and cleaned me up, complete with all the loving I wanted. Through the course of this, a lot of me died. I lost skin, blood, things that were me were gone, but he never let ME die.
So back to god, maybe it's not the human, "the piece" for which he is completely consumed with protecting, but humanity, "the whole". Just as my father let the tiny parts that made me die while protecting the core being, so too does god allow pieces of humanity die. In the course of my pieces dying, I learned many lessons, ones that made a more complete person than one shielded in a bubble. So, too, do the tragedies where we lose "pieces" teach the whole of humanity valuable lessons, increasing the knowledge and appreciation of the remaining core.
This is a totally-out-of-left-field thought that hit me after reading SOOPOO's comment, but any thoughts?
/hops back.
Quote: FaceThis is a totally-out-of-left-field thought that hit me after reading SOOPOO's comment, but any thoughts?
/hops back.
Kazantzakis (my go-to guy on such matters) said, "since we cannot change reality, we must change the eyes through which we see reality". I think that part of the problem here, in grappling with questions regarding divine love, is that we (on this board) appear to be mired in the Western concept of a transcendent deity, one necessarily separate from life here on Earth, and couched up above us somewhere in the heavens. I wonder whether such questions would even arise if (here in the Occident) we took the decidedly more Oriental route by assuming the deity to be imminent, necessarily within and a part of all living things.
I don't know. I'm starting to remember why I try to stay out of these things. I'll be negotiating a portion of my winnings at the shrine by the Fan Tan table if anyone needs me.
Quote: SOOPOOBut I would use my 'love' if I had the power, to protect those I love, not let them perish at a madman's hand. What is the purpose of God's 'love' if it cannot even match that of a human's? No religious person has ever been able to explain to me why the all powerful, all benevolent deity would allow that kind of tragedy.
I think the other side would say that god gave us a good planet and everything we need to be happy. If we are cruel to each other, whose fault is that?
Quote: Face[..] but any thoughts?
You asked.
So god loves me as much as a parent cares for, say, one of his child's epithelial cells. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
Quote: NareedQuote: Face[..] but any thoughts?
You asked.
So god loves me as much as a parent cares for, say, one of his child's epithelial cells. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
I did, and I'm glad you're on this =)
In a way, yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm asking. But I'm not so sure (yet, this is a very new idea to me) what the "wrong" is. As a relatively new father, I do love every single hair on my little monster's head. But much like my Pops and his before him, I let him hurt, within reason. I'll stop him from running on the wet porch once, I'll yell for him to stop next, and then I just watch. It hurts me emotionally when he inevitably tumbles; I don't like to see those little tatters of flesh and droplets of blood, but it feels like the right thing to do. Keep him safe, but let him learn. Teach him consequence, teach him obedience, teach him responsibility, even if it causes acute harm. Why? For the greater good of his future person.
With all the talk of the Bible not being literal, maybe this is one of those things. God loves us as a father and watches over us, but he's not there to swoop in and save everyone from every ill. For it is not me or you specifically that he is focused on, but rather all of humanity, all of his creation, much like I care for my baby boy's wittle knees, but it's his overall person that I focus my love and energy on.
I dunno, just thinking out loud. It's weird being on this side of the arguement, but it's worth it for discussion. I hope FrG chimes in.
Quote: FaceI don't like to see those little tatters of flesh and droplets of blood, but it feels like the right thing to do. Keep him safe, but let him learn. Teach him consequence, teach him obedience, teach him responsibility, even if it causes acute harm. Why? For the greater good of his future person.
I can understand that. But if he wanted to cut off a finger with garden shears, you wouldn't stand back and say "I hate looking at this, but the boy needs to learn responsibility even if it causes acute harm." No way. You'd swoop in a lot faster than you ever thought possible, and likely scare him half to death so he won't ever dare do anything like that again.
So if I matter to god as much a skinned knee in a child matters to a parent... Need I go on?
Quote: NareedI can understand that. But if he wanted to cut off a finger with garden shears, you wouldn't stand back and say "I hate looking at this, but the boy needs to learn responsibility even if it causes acute harm
Little kids do a version of this when they suddenly decide to run towards a busy road. And parents do the swoop.
Quote: heatherKazantzakis (my go-to guy on such matters)
This thread nhas been worth it for me because I
just discovered Kazantzakis in it.
"Where are we going? Do not ask! Ascend, descend. There is
no beginning and no end. Only this present moment exists,
full of bitterness, full of sweetness, and I rejoice in it all."
heather/ goes back to looking for table games
It's been a long day but I would like to share a few reflection's on Face's interesting contribution and thoughts when I can tommorrow. Speaking of contributions I also want to say some of the new posts from 24Bingo and heather have been thought provoking too. Peace.
Quote: FrGambleAs usual there are some incorrect historical information provided by my good friend Bob that probably should be corrected.
What you mean is actual history disagrees with the doctored
Church version, as usual.
Example: The Inquisition really happened and was a horror
story for hundreds of years.
Churches version: Well, not really.
Quote: FaceQuote: NareedQuote: Face[..] but any thoughts?
You asked.
So god loves me as much as a parent cares for, say, one of his child's epithelial cells. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?
I did, and I'm glad you're on this =)
In a way, yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm asking. But I'm not so sure (yet, this is a very new idea to me) what the "wrong" is. As a relatively new father, I do love every single hair on my little monster's head. But much like my Pops and his before him, I let him hurt, within reason. I'll stop him from running on the wet porch once, I'll yell for him to stop next, and then I just watch. It hurts me emotionally when he inevitably tumbles; I don't like to see those little tatters of flesh and droplets of blood, but it feels like the right thing to do. Keep him safe, but let him learn. Teach him consequence, teach him obedience, teach him responsibility, even if it causes acute harm. Why? For the greater good of his future person.
With all the talk of the Bible not being literal, maybe this is one of those things. God loves us as a father and watches over us, but he's not there to swoop in and save everyone from every ill. For it is not me or you specifically that he is focused on, but rather all of humanity, all of his creation, much like I care for my baby boy's wittle knees, but it's his overall person that I focus my love and energy on.
I dunno, just thinking out loud. It's weird being on this side of the arguement, but it's worth it for discussion. I hope FrG chimes in.
These were two insightful posts Face. As an adjunct, it could be argued that God selectively hears prayers and intercedes at times for the general purpose of keeping the Baby out of the street...
Quote: Face
In a way, yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm asking. But I'm not so sure (yet, this is a very new idea to me) what the "wrong" is. As a relatively new father, I do love every single hair on my little monster's head. But much like my Pops and his before him, I let him hurt, within reason. I'll stop him from running on the wet porch once, I'll yell for him to stop next, and then I just watch. It hurts me emotionally when he inevitably tumbles; I don't like to see those little tatters of flesh and droplets of blood, but it feels like the right thing to do. Keep him safe, but let him learn. Teach him consequence, teach him obedience, teach him responsibility, even if it causes acute harm. Why? For the greater good of his future person.
With all the talk of the Bible not being literal, maybe this is one of those things. God loves us as a father and watches over us, but he's not there to swoop in and save everyone from every ill. For it is not me or you specifically that he is focused on, but rather all of humanity, all of his creation, much like I care for my baby boy's wittle knees, but it's his overall person that I focus my love and energy on.
I dunno, just thinking out loud. It's weird being on this side of the arguement, but it's worth it for discussion. I hope FrG chimes in.
Face thanks for your thought provoking perspective. It reminded me that I think God's goal for us in this world is not just a life filled with constant perfect physical pleasure and the absence of all pain. This strikes me as a childish view of who God is. God is after us to experience true and lasting happiness that the inevitable suffering we experience in this fleeting and broken world cannot touch. In fact there are some important lessons it seems to me we cannot truly learn without a skinned knee or a broken heart. So while it hurts our heavenly Father in the same way it would hurt a good earthly father to see their dear child hurt, God has something bigger to teach us. God wants us to know that no matter what we go through we are loved. This gives us a sense of peace, that doesn't take away the hurt and is not some pretend happiness, but it is a real deep peace. The word to use here may be more like Shalom, a deep sense of peace pervading the entirety of our lives. You can have Shalom and cancer, you can have Shalom in a concentration camp, you can have Shalom when grieving the loss of a loved one. God and His love for me, especially in the difficulties of life, is the source of my Shalom.
Quote: EvenBobWhat you mean is actual history disagrees with the doctored
Church version, as usual.
Example: The Inquisition really happened and was a horror
story for hundreds of years.
Churches version: Well, not really.
Read up on who wrote the "actual history," and what their beliefs were, and you'll find that you've been tricked on which version is religious propaganda.
Quote: EvenBobYes and no. The Church can't deny the Bible was put
together by them, its a historical fact. They put the
modern Bible together at The Council of Nicaea in
325 AD. They threw out all the letters and books
that didn't agree with where they wanted the Church
to head, namely, that Jesus was divine. Thats why
all these other books are floating around that didn't
make it into the Bible.
The First Council of Nicea in 325 had nothing to do with the Canon or list of books to be accepted in the Bible as we see it today. By the end of the 2nd century lists of books and letters accepted by the community as inspired by God were already floating around. Eusebius (300 AD) had already started to determine and list which books were unanimously accepted by everyone, which ones were disputed, and which ones everybody knew were not part of the Sacred Canon. Nicea didn't throw anything out they used the faith of the people of God who had already accepted certain writings to confirm the ancient truth Christians have always held that Jesus was Divine.
Quote: EvenBobIts all rather pretentious and silly. Whats in the
Bible is True and Holy only because all these
old dudes at Nicaea with an agenda said they
were. The rest of the stuff they didn't select
was proclaimed blastphemy, of course. Much
of it makes far better reading than anything in
the Bible does. The book of Thomas, for instance.
As mentioned earlier Nicea had nothing to do with the Bible's formation. By the way surprisingly enough the official Canon or list of Biblical books does not get codified until 1546 at the Council of Trent in response to the challenges of the Protestant Reformation. The Gospel of Thomas does make good reading because of stories in there like Jesus making little clay animals and breathing on them so they come to life. A couple of bullies come along and break some of the little clay animals so Jesus kills them. Um, yeah there is good reason that didn't make it into the Bible. Thomas and the other non accepted writings are mainly secret writings for some Christian heretical sects.
Quote: EvenBobMany religions are like the saying about sausage.
Just accept it as it is, don't go into the kitchen
and see how it was made. You'll never eat it again..
I do love me some scrapple.
Quote: FrGambleIt reminded me that I think God's goal for us in this world is not just a life filled with constant perfect physical pleasure and the absence of all pain.
This makes me think Heaven is going to suck then. If you can't have a decent existence without physical pain. I don't know about perfect pleasure, but I'd take 90% and a bag of chips.
Quote: NareedI can understand that. But if he wanted to cut off a finger with garden shears, you wouldn't stand back and say "I hate looking at this, but the boy needs to learn responsibility even if it causes acute harm." No way. You'd swoop in a lot faster than you ever thought possible, and likely scare him half to death so he won't ever dare do anything like that again.
So if I matter to god as much a skinned knee in a child matters to a parent... Need I go on?
Lol, now I've done it. I have a reflexive urge to defend my point, yet it's a point in which I don't necessarily believe. It's a very weird feeling =) Well, for the sake of discussion, here goes anyway...
I guess I'd argue by looking at it another way. Of course, as a sane and loving parent, I'd not allow my child to purposely sever a finger. However, I'd let him do generally what he wants, even if the risk was greater than a loss of a digit. If he wants to play football, hockey, race go-karts or autos, if he wants to BASE jump, whatever, where he's almost definitely going to get hurt, even killed, I'd still let him do it. Wouldn't you? Because being a parent isn't about ultimate protection, it isn't about control for control's sake, and it isn't about power over a person. It's about love, it's about preparing your child for what comes next, helping him when he really needs it, but ultimately letting him succeed or fail based on his/her own merit.
You know what I just thought of? As a baby, I controlled or attempted to control his every action. As he's grown, I'm still all over him, but he makes decisions on what to play, what to eat, when to pee, etc. I still rule, but he's gaining control over himself. As he grows, my control will lessen and lessen until it's not really control, but merely influence. Couldn't that same concept be applied to the Holy? Wasn't the "Old God", maybe Old Testament (I'm not terribly good with the Bible), the "mean bastard" God, that demanded this and demanded that and brought down punishment accordingly, kind of like a child would look at his parent? "Jeez, my dad never lets me do anything, I don't understand why he's so mean, man, why can't I just do what I want?". As humanity has grown, as our group knowledge has increased, God begins to step back, much like a parent of a young adult steps back. No longer does a parent demand his child do this and do that, but the influence is still there. Could the same be applied to God? No longer are we as humans directionless and in need of direct contact by Him, He's already pointed the way and taught what needs to be known. Why do we never see Him anymore? Because we don't need to, same reason my Pops doesn't tie my shoes for me any more. The way has been shown, He's not going to do it for us. It's not that He doesn't love us, not that He doesn't watch out for us, but succeed or fail, it's up to us now.
Lol, this is so weird. Nareed, you've done the impossible and caused me to write what can only be described as a pro-god arguement. Well done, mi'lady ;)
Quote: FrGambleFace thanks for your thought provoking perspective. It reminded me that I think God's goal for us in this world is not just a life filled with constant perfect physical pleasure and the absence of all pain. This strikes me as a childish view of who God is. God is after us to experience true and lasting happiness that the inevitable suffering we experience in this fleeting and broken world cannot touch. In fact there are some important lessons it seems to me we cannot truly learn without a skinned knee or a broken heart. So while it hurts our heavenly Father in the same way it would hurt a good earthly father to see their dear child hurt, God has something bigger to teach us. God wants us to know that no matter what we go through we are loved. This gives us a sense of peace, that doesn't take away the hurt and is not some pretend happiness, but it is a real deep peace. The word to use here may be more like Shalom, a deep sense of peace pervading the entirety of our lives. You can have Shalom and cancer, you can have Shalom in a concentration camp, you can have Shalom when grieving the loss of a loved one. God and His love for me, especially in the difficulties of life, is the source of my Shalom.
You're welcome, and thanks for addressing my post. In response to your comments, I wonder if my response to Nareed also makes sense. I look in my recent past, and see times of struggle. Loss of job, fear of money shortages, my marriage crumbled, my son fell ill, typical life stuff. But through it all, I always had the love and support of my family. Sure, a hug from Mom didn't pay my bills, and a good talk with Pops didn't fix my divorce, so what good is it? Well, sometimes a hug is more than a hug. Just knowing that love was there kept me positive and looking towards making the goal of clearing my debts. Now here I am on the last few weeks of weathering the bad times and am almost cleared to start climbing out of the hole. The talks with Pops (and indeed, the talks with those here) didn't fix my divorce, but they put me in a frame of mind to work through it. They may even have directly prevented a spiral into depression that would have adversely affected my son directly. Not one person in my life, neither "real" life or the life on the web, swooped in and laid hands on my problem. No one paid my bills, no one employed me, no one fixed my son (SOOPOO wasn't there, I checked ;)), but in many ways, all the people that lended their support and their love absolutely helped. I'd even say more so than if someone did directly pay my bills or give me a job.
Is this similar to what you mean when you talk about God's love? Not as some magical beam that rights every wrong and casts a ward around you protecting you from harm, but rather, for lack of a better way of putting it, as a thought or idea that gives you strength, much as Mom and Pops and some folks here's ideas have given me the same?
Quote: FaceI guess I'd argue by looking at it another way. Of course, as a sane and loving parent, I'd not allow my child to purposely sever a finger. However, I'd let him do generally what he wants, even if the risk was greater than a loss of a digit. If he wants to play football, hockey, race go-karts or autos, if he wants to BASE jump, whatever, where he's almost definitely going to get hurt, even killed, I'd still let him do it. Wouldn't you?
I woulnd't let my child do BASE jumping. If I had an adult child who insisted on doing that, I'd invite him to watch me play Russian Roulette. But that's beside the point.
The point is that you don't get to change the analogy in mid-discussion. It's not fair. So going from the earlier analogy of humanity as a single person and an individual as a cell, genocide is like self-mamiming, not like taking risks.
Quote:Lol, this is so weird. Nareed, you've done the impossible and caused me to write what can only be described as a pro-god arguement. Well done, mi'lady ;)
That's ok. You've managed to come up with a notion of god that is more repellent to me than the original one. I wouldn't have believed it possible.
Quote: FrGambleThe First Council of Nicea in 325 had nothing to do with the Canon or list of books to be accepted in the Bible as we see it today.
.
I always get Nicea confused with when the books were
chosen. My point is still the same. The Catholic Church
chose which books stayed in and which got thrown
out after they decided what the Church was going to
stand for. Basically, the Church was invented at that
time.
Its like a political party. First you choose your platform,
what you endorse and don't endorse, then you stand by
it and get recruits. The formation of the Church had
nothing to do with divine intervention, it was sausage
making from start to end.
Quote: NareedI woulnd't let my child do BASE jumping. If I had an adult child who insisted on doing that, I'd invite him to watch me play Russian Roulette. But that's beside the point.
The point is that you don't get to change the analogy in mid-discussion. It's not fair. So going from the earlier analogy of humanity as a single person and an individual as a cell, genocide is like self-mamiming, not like taking risks.
I know, I'm sorry. In trying to keep with the original analogy, my arguement ran out of steam when thinking of incredible human tragedies, like the Holocaust or Great Leap Forward. I freely admit that. It's just I wasn't trying to win an arguement, rather trying to convey an idea.
Quote: NareedThat's ok. You've managed to come up with a notion of god that is more repellent to me than the original one. I wouldn't have believed it possible.
This is surprising to me. IF there was a god, a more hands-off version would me more repelling? I'd be interested to hear why. Personally, as a non believer, if I found there was indeed a god, I'd much rather Him be like I described. "I'll show you the way, but you do what you want" rather than the Biblical God's way of "Do what I say or else".
Quote: FaceThis is surprising to me. IF there was a god, a more hands-off version would me more repelling? I'd be interested to hear why.
Would that I understood the question :)
Quote:Personally, as a non believer, if I found there was indeed a god, I'd much rather Him be like I described. "I'll show you the way, but you do what you want" rather than the Biblical God's way of "Do what I say or else".
You know, given the total lack of evidence about any kind of god, much less an omnipotent, omniscient one, I'll steal from Larry Niven's saw about psychic powers and parpaphrase: if there is a god, he's pretty much useless.
Anyway, I'd find any god who gave no importance to the individual not only repellent, but evil as well. Think of a divine version of Stalin or Mao. Oh, and this would be regarldess of whether this god intevenes in human affairs or not.
