|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 1, 2020 16:16:45 GMT
Composer and diarist Ned Rorem summed it up elegantly by saying God loves his creation, which means all things. God loves cancer just as much as he loves us, and plays no favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 16:44:34 GMT
You answered your own question and I agree with you. But humans live with constraints...we can't "make" things happen without taking into acct physical laws/limitations. We make mistakes because we don't know all there is to know about the world in which we live. Humans are not omnipotemnt/omniscient. We can't avoid certain outcomes. We need to take things into account, so to speak. Is that why God "allows" suffering...because he can't make things happen any other way? If so, I would agree, it's pretty much a given that God is either unaware of the suffering he causes, cannot avoid it or doesn't care enough to keep it from happening. IOW, God is limited in much the same way humans are. It's almost as if humans created God in their own image...a limited, somewhat selfish/jealous being who is forced to "deal" with real life, so to speak. It's complex. All monotheistic as well as polytheistic creeds struggle with pain and suffering. It is complex yet simple. God created man and put him in a perfect place, (Eden) no pain, no suffering. Man was created so perfect he was meant to live forever. But man sinned and he was ejected from the beautiful place God had for him. Sin became part of life as well as sickness. The long and short of it is we were sold out. If our first parents had remained obedient to God sin would not exist nor sickness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2020 18:06:43 GMT
But humans live with constraints...we can't "make" things happen without taking into acct physical laws/limitations. We make mistakes because we don't know all there is to know about the world in which we live. Humans are not omnipotemnt/omniscient. We can't avoid certain outcomes. We need to take things into account, so to speak. Is that why God "allows" suffering...because he can't make things happen any other way? If so, I would agree, it's pretty much a given that God is either unaware of the suffering he causes, cannot avoid it or doesn't care enough to keep it from happening. IOW, God is limited in much the same way humans are. It's almost as if humans created God in their own image...a limited, somewhat selfish/jealous being who is forced to "deal" with real life, so to speak. It's complex. All monotheistic as well as polytheistic creeds struggle with pain and suffering. It is complex yet simple. God created man and put him in a perfect place, (Eden) no pain, no suffering. Man was created so perfect he was meant to live forever. But man sinned and he was ejected from the beautiful place God had for him. Sin became part of life as well as sickness. The long and short of it is we were sold out. If our first parents had remained obedient to God sin would not exist nor sickness. So, THAT'S what you've really been on about, with all of those vague platitudes....inherited sin? You could have said so in the first place. The notion of a ruler proclaiming that children shall suffer punishment for the offense of the parent is one that is easily grasped by the mind. It's a notion that some of the more cruel and barbaric rulers throughout history have embraced.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 18:20:13 GMT
But humans live with constraints...we can't "make" things happen without taking into acct physical laws/limitations. We make mistakes because we don't know all there is to know about the world in which we live. Humans are not omnipotemnt/omniscient. We can't avoid certain outcomes. We need to take things into account, so to speak. Is that why God "allows" suffering...because he can't make things happen any other way? If so, I would agree, it's pretty much a given that God is either unaware of the suffering he causes, cannot avoid it or doesn't care enough to keep it from happening. IOW, God is limited in much the same way humans are. It's almost as if humans created God in their own image...a limited, somewhat selfish/jealous being who is forced to "deal" with real life, so to speak. It's complex. All monotheistic as well as polytheistic creeds struggle with pain and suffering. It is complex yet simple. God created man and put him in a perfect place, (Eden) no pain, no suffering. Man was created so perfect he was meant to live forever. But man sinned and he was ejected from the beautiful place God had for him. Sin became part of life as well as sickness. The long and short of it is we were sold out. If our first parents had remained obedient to God sin would not exist nor sickness. Why would a perfect man sin?
And why would sin result in a permanent condition in humanity that was passed on to subsequent generations?
Is God unable to "re" create each human anew at birth/conception so each person has an equal chance to those who were created at first? And why was there just "A perfect place" vs the entire creation being perfect? Seems a design flaw. Why would sin result in an alteration to creation? Again seems like a design flaw where the creation was deficient rather than...perfect. It sounds like a just so story to justify believing in both a perfect creator who has the best intentions for humans AND recognizing that the world isn't perfect FROM THE STANDPOINT of suffering. Again, humans HAVE to deal with a reality they can't control. That's why they end up settling for....SETTLING FOR...an existence with suffering. They can't help it. But if the world is the result of a god who is all powerful...who doesn't have to settle for anything, then any suffering is due to his/its intent that suffering BE a part of what he created. God either messed up or created the world so that sin would screw it up and become infused with suffering.
Now, did God not have a choice? If so, it means he did it on purpose. If no, then...did he even have free will at all and why imagine him omnipotent?
And what of those who believe in heaven? Do you...believe in an eternal existence for certain people where there will be no suffering no sin, no corruption? What's going to be different with heaven that humans who were ostensibly made perfect to begin with but sinned nevertheless, won't sin...for eternity? Apparently they won't even THINK about sinning. And why would heaven be immune to even the possibility of sin...will sin even be a possibility there? IOW, will humans have morally relevant free will in heaven? Or will their freewill be somehow altered by God so the inhabitants will have both free will but won't ever choose sin? And will heaven be susceptible to the ravages of sin or did God make heaven different than this world? If so, it refutes the claim that God HAD to make a world like this that could be corrupted by sin in order for there to be morally relevant free will.
None of that refutes the idea that there might be a god of some sort, but it refutes the idea that freewill goes hand in hand with a corruptible world. And it refutes the claim that God allows freewill for the same reason people "allow" [more like endure/settle for] suffering. People can't do anything about it...they're not omnipotent/omniscient. But either God CAN do something about it but refuses or he can't have what he wants without settling for some level of sin/suffering...which means he's not omnipotent.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 18:27:17 GMT
Composer and diarist Ned Rorem summed it up elegantly by saying God loves his creation, which means all things. God loves cancer just as much as he loves us, and plays no favorites. Now that's a god I can get behind. I've often wondered, if there IS a god, whether he's a tinkerer, a clever designer who just wanted to see what would happen if he created...matter/energy and time/space. Perhaps he's more interested in watching nebulae coalesce into stars then black holes and then watch what happens to black holes after eons of time. Maybe he just wanted to see what kinds of universal constants might end up with life and sentient beings. After tens of trillions of years, he may try again with some different parameters and see what happens. We're just fruit flies in his grand experiment. Actually we're probably more like the bacteria that live on the rear ends of the tardigrades who live on the rear-ends of mites that live on the rear-ends of fruit-flies in god's experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Jan 1, 2020 18:35:29 GMT
Composer and diarist Ned Rorem summed it up elegantly by saying God loves his creation, which means all things. God loves cancer just as much as he loves us, and plays no favorites. Now that's a god I can get behind. I've often wondered, if there IS a god, whether he's a tinkerer, a clever designer who just wanted to see what would happen if he created...matter/energy and time/space. Perhaps he's more interested in watching nebulae coalesce into stars then black holes and then watch what happens to black holes after eons of time. Maybe he just wanted to see what kinds of universal constants might end up with life and sentient beings. After tens of trillions of years, he may try again with some different parameters and see what happens. We're just fruit flies in his grand experiment. Actually we're probably more like the bacteria that live on the rear ends of the tardigrades who live on the rear-ends of mites that live on the rear-ends of fruit-flies in god's experiment. I cant imagine God would be so humanlike that you can give him human attributes such as intrigue, wonder, inquisitive etc. I think if a greater being doee exist it is beyond these limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 19:25:07 GMT
Now that's a god I can get behind. I've often wondered, if there IS a god, whether he's a tinkerer, a clever designer who just wanted to see what would happen if he created...matter/energy and time/space. Perhaps he's more interested in watching nebulae coalesce into stars then black holes and then watch what happens to black holes after eons of time. Maybe he just wanted to see what kinds of universal constants might end up with life and sentient beings. After tens of trillions of years, he may try again with some different parameters and see what happens. We're just fruit flies in his grand experiment. Actually we're probably more like the bacteria that live on the rear ends of the tardigrades who live on the rear-ends of mites that live on the rear-ends of fruit-flies in god's experiment. I cant imagine God would be so humanlike that you can give him human attributes such as intrigue, wonder, inquisitive etc. I think if a greater being doee exist it is beyond these limitations. Perhaps it's the limits of ones imagination that precludes one in thinking an superb intelligence wouldn't be a tinkerer. What would you imagine a god would be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 1, 2020 19:28:30 GMT
Why would a perfect man sin?
In this context, just agree to define "perfect" as sinless. And if he is invested with free will, he could choose to give up that sinless state and take the consequences.There's the kicker. God (of the Bible) could have just punished Adam and Eve, as he threatened he would. But why, and without prior warning, would he decide that unborn generations would share that punishment? In any other context, punishing children for their parent's crime would be considered abominable. But because the Bible says that God did it, we are supposed to consider it just and proper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 19:54:18 GMT
It's complex. All monotheistic as well as polytheistic creeds struggle with pain and suffering. It is complex yet simple. God created man and put him in a perfect place, (Eden) no pain, no suffering. Man was created so perfect he was meant to live forever. But man sinned and he was ejected from the beautiful place God had for him. Sin became part of life as well as sickness. The long and short of it is we were sold out. If our first parents had remained obedient to God sin would not exist nor sickness. Why would a perfect man sin?
And why would sin result in a permanent condition in humanity that was passed on to subsequent generations?
Is God unable to "re" create each human anew at birth/conception so each person has an equal chance to those who were created at first? And why was there just "A perfect place" vs the entire creation being perfect? Seems a design flaw. Why would sin result in an alteration to creation? Again seems like a design flaw where the creation was deficient rather than...perfect. It sounds like a just so story to justify believing in both a perfect creator who has the best intentions for humans AND recognizing that the world isn't perfect FROM THE STANDPOINT of suffering. Again, humans HAVE to deal with a reality they can't control. That's why they end up settling for....SETTLING FOR...an existence with suffering. They can't help it. But if the world is the result of a god who is all powerful...who doesn't have to settle for anything, then any suffering is due to his/its intent that suffering BE a part of what he created. God either messed up or created the world so that sin would screw it up and become infused with suffering.
Now, did God not have a choice? If so, it means he did it on purpose. If no, then...did he even have free will at all and why imagine him omnipotent?
And what of those who believe in heaven? Do you...believe in an eternal existence for certain people where there will be no suffering no sin, no corruption? What's going to be different with heaven that humans who were ostensibly made perfect to begin with but sinned nevertheless, won't sin...for eternity? Apparently they won't even THINK about sinning. And why would heaven be immune to even the possibility of sin...will sin even be a possibility there? IOW, will humans have morally relevant free will in heaven? Or will their freewill be somehow altered by God so the inhabitants will have both free will but won't ever choose sin? And will heaven be susceptible to the ravages of sin or did God make heaven different than this world? If so, it refutes the claim that God HAD to make a world like this that could be corrupted by sin in order for there to be morally relevant free will.
None of that refutes the idea that there might be a god of some sort, but it refutes the idea that freewill goes hand in hand with a corruptible world. And it refutes the claim that God allows freewill for the same reason people "allow" [more like endure/settle for] suffering. People can't do anything about it...they're not omnipotent/omniscient. But either God CAN do something about it but refuses or he can't have what he wants without settling for some level of sin/suffering...which means he's not omnipotent.
God trusted us with something very valuable and dangerous. He gave us a freewill. The Bible is very loosely written. At first the Jewish people were polythetic ….believing in more than one god. Many years later along came the scribes and edited out all traces of other gods....well almost. God even had a wife her name is/was Ashura. I have been to seminary and have a degree in divinity. I don't know it all nor does anyone else. I have a little poodle. He's lost one eye because of glaucoma and he's now blind in the other eye. One of my family members said I feel so bad that he can't see, I wish he could. I said he's never going to see again except it and I love that dog. As far as sickness and disease I don't have all the answers. Maybe medical science will at some point help the human race but until then, except it...it's the way it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 20:37:59 GMT
Why would a perfect man sin?
In this context, just agree to define "perfect" as sinless. And if he is invested with free will, he could choose to give up that sinless state and take the consequences.There's the kicker. God (of the Bible) could have just punished Adam and Eve, as he threatened he would. But why, and without prior warning, would he decide that unborn generations would share that punishment? In any other context, punishing children for their parent's crime would be considered abominable. But because the Bible says that God did it, we are supposed to consider it just and proper. "Future generations" are no more people than unconcieved babies are "people." You wouldn't buy into the argument that abortion...taking the life of the conceived yet unborn is the same as the couple abstaining and failing to produce an embryo, would you? So those future generations would not even exist if Adam and Eve had been punished as promised and they would not be "punished" by failing to materialize.
As I pointed out, freewill does not automatically equal "sin" and disobedience. So God must have made humans so they COULD sin with their free will.
And this whole discussion fails to address the REAL problem of suffering...that from natural and unintended causes. At most, if free will was the culprit, then only that suffering due to personal choices would be attributable to free will. The suffering of nonhumans, the suffering due to natural causes, the suffering due to natural disasters (that aren't themselves due to human mistakes) make up the vast majority of human suffering. FAR FAR FAR more unborn have died because of natural birth problems, still births and deformities, etc. than any that are killed via abortion or a mother not taking the best care of herself she could.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 1, 2020 20:41:07 GMT
Why would a perfect man sin?
And why would sin result in a permanent condition in humanity that was passed on to subsequent generations?
Is God unable to "re" create each human anew at birth/conception so each person has an equal chance to those who were created at first? And why was there just "A perfect place" vs the entire creation being perfect? Seems a design flaw. Why would sin result in an alteration to creation? Again seems like a design flaw where the creation was deficient rather than...perfect. It sounds like a just so story to justify believing in both a perfect creator who has the best intentions for humans AND recognizing that the world isn't perfect FROM THE STANDPOINT of suffering. Again, humans HAVE to deal with a reality they can't control. That's why they end up settling for....SETTLING FOR...an existence with suffering. They can't help it. But if the world is the result of a god who is all powerful...who doesn't have to settle for anything, then any suffering is due to his/its intent that suffering BE a part of what he created. God either messed up or created the world so that sin would screw it up and become infused with suffering.
Now, did God not have a choice? If so, it means he did it on purpose. If no, then...did he even have free will at all and why imagine him omnipotent?
And what of those who believe in heaven? Do you...believe in an eternal existence for certain people where there will be no suffering no sin, no corruption? What's going to be different with heaven that humans who were ostensibly made perfect to begin with but sinned nevertheless, won't sin...for eternity? Apparently they won't even THINK about sinning. And why would heaven be immune to even the possibility of sin...will sin even be a possibility there? IOW, will humans have morally relevant free will in heaven? Or will their freewill be somehow altered by God so the inhabitants will have both free will but won't ever choose sin? And will heaven be susceptible to the ravages of sin or did God make heaven different than this world? If so, it refutes the claim that God HAD to make a world like this that could be corrupted by sin in order for there to be morally relevant free will.
None of that refutes the idea that there might be a god of some sort, but it refutes the idea that freewill goes hand in hand with a corruptible world. And it refutes the claim that God allows freewill for the same reason people "allow" [more like endure/settle for] suffering. People can't do anything about it...they're not omnipotent/omniscient. But either God CAN do something about it but refuses or he can't have what he wants without settling for some level of sin/suffering...which means he's not omnipotent.
God trusted us with something very valuable and dangerous. He gave us a freewill. The Bible is very loosely written. At first the Jewish people were polythetic ….believing in more than one god. Many years later along came the scribes and edited out all traces of other gods....well almost. God even had a wife her name is/was Ashura. I have been to seminary and have a degree in divinity. I don't know it all nor does anyone else. I have a little poodle. He's lost one eye because of glaucoma and he's now blind in the other eye. One of my family members said I feel so bad that he can't see, I wish he could. I said he's never going to see again except it and I love that dog. As far as sickness and disease I don't have all the answers. Maybe medical science will at some point help the human race but until then, except it...it's the way it is. Do you believe there will be free will in heaven? Do you believe that in some manner, God will ensure that heaven is not corrupted due to sin?
Humans have to accept the natural world and natural consequences...that is why humans "deal with" suffering. But a god need not accept natural consequences. A God if omnipotent should be able to overcome natural obstacles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jan 1, 2020 21:30:42 GMT
“Why does God allow suffering?'
Because he’s an asshole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 1, 2020 21:36:31 GMT
God trusted us with something very valuable and dangerous. He gave us a freewill. The Bible is very loosely written. At first the Jewish people were polythetic ….believing in more than one god. Many years later along came the scribes and edited out all traces of other gods....well almost. God even had a wife her name is/was Ashura. I have been to seminary and have a degree in divinity. I don't know it all nor does anyone else. I have a little poodle. He's lost one eye because of glaucoma and he's now blind in the other eye. One of my family members said I feel so bad that he can't see, I wish he could. I said he's never going to see again except it and I love that dog. As far as sickness and disease I don't have all the answers. Maybe medical science will at some point help the human race but until then, except it...it's the way it is. Do you believe there will be free will in heaven? Do you believe that in some manner, God will ensure that heaven is not corrupted due to sin?
Humans have to accept the natural world and natural consequences...that is why humans "deal with" suffering. But a god need not accept natural consequences. A God if omnipotent should be able to overcome natural obstacles.
Maybe you should talk it over with God. It's possible you will receive a revelation from God on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2020 22:29:15 GMT
How do you understand the inner-self, if you can’t understand the true nature of what God really represents? By examining below the surface of one's inner-self, and connecting with one's inner-inner-self.  Why not take it deeper and examine the inner inner inner inner self only to find there is no self.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 1, 2020 22:30:58 GMT
How do you understand the inner-self, if you can’t understand the true nature of what God really represents? Jesus said you must become as little children. But who wants that...right? Well, if you want to be childish for the rest of your life be my guest. Jesus said a lot of things that get misinterpreted.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 2, 2020 3:18:10 GMT
Do you believe there will be free will in heaven? Do you believe that in some manner, God will ensure that heaven is not corrupted due to sin?
Humans have to accept the natural world and natural consequences...that is why humans "deal with" suffering. But a god need not accept natural consequences. A God if omnipotent should be able to overcome natural obstacles.
Maybe you should talk it over with God. It's possible you will receive a revelation from God on the subject. I did. He told me that the reason you gave for why he allows suffering is wrong. You said, "God allows suffering for the same reason you do. If there were no suffering or pain we wouldn't be alive. It's part of a package deal." God said that's not why he allows suffering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huxley on Jan 2, 2020 8:05:08 GMT
Maybe you should talk it over with God. It's possible you will receive a revelation from God on the subject. I did. He told me that the reason you gave for why he allows suffering is wrong. You said, "God allows suffering for the same reason you do. If there were no suffering or pain we wouldn't be alive. It's part of a package deal." God said that's not why he allows suffering. Sounds very thoughtful on his part. I have had enough pain and suffering in my life. I wish it were not the case. Is there a particular reason why you're so interested in suffering? I've given you my best answer, and you didn't like it, yet you persist in asking the same question.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2020 11:14:12 GMT
I don't think it's necessary to think that the creation of this Universe is deliberate, even if we're assuming for the sake of argument that there are Gods. And I'm not thinking of the typical Judo-Christian concept of 'Heaven' when I talk about afterlife. It could be the spirit worlds of the native Americans, the reincarnation of the Hindu's or whatever. Afterlife could even refer to other dimensions, like the realms people who use DMT profess to see. Spirit worlds and afterlife's of some kind are so typical of beliefs in God(s) that I can't think of any exceptions. A God cannot exist in a vacuum. That still offers no logical need for an afterlife, or whatever you term something similar. I agree a conviction of such is typical of religious belief but as I said that does mean it is necessarily a correct statement of the way things are, or must be. To look at this a different way: Buddhists believe death is a natural part of the life cycle. They believe that death simply leads to rebirth. This belief in reincarnation – that a person's spirit remains close by and seeks out a new body and new life – is a comforting and important principle. But they hold no god responsible for this state of affairs.Any Cause by the way must perforce have existed by itself at one point, since everything which follows is contingent to it. The only thing which it always had in addition to itself and the absolute absence of anything else at that point was its potential. I agree that scenarios where there is an afterlife but no God(s) ruling over it are not uncommon. Members of some generally non-theistic religions tend to believe in an afterlife but without reference to a deity. However, my point is that the opposite is not very common at all. Generally speaking where there is a God or Gods, there is some form of afterlife. I haven't seen any exceptions offered up that hold up under scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jan 2, 2020 11:44:29 GMT
That still offers no logical need for an afterlife, or whatever you term something similar. I agree a conviction of such is typical of religious belief but as I said that does mean it is necessarily a correct statement of the way things are, or must be. To look at this a different way: Buddhists believe death is a natural part of the life cycle. They believe that death simply leads to rebirth. This belief in reincarnation – that a person's spirit remains close by and seeks out a new body and new life – is a comforting and important principle. But they hold no god responsible for this state of affairs.Any Cause by the way must perforce have existed by itself at one point, since everything which follows is contingent to it. The only thing which it always had in addition to itself and the absolute absence of anything else at that point was its potential. I agree that scenarios where there is an afterlife but no God(s) ruling over it are not uncommon. Members of some generally non-theistic religions tend to believe in an afterlife but without reference to a deity. However, my point is that the opposite is not very common at all. Generally speaking where there is a God or Gods, there is some form of afterlife. I haven't seen any exceptions offered up that hold up under scrutiny. Atheists have a problem with the term God and spirtuality. Theists see this as separate and away from them. Religion has done much to malign the authentic notion of God and spirituality, that it has now become its own worst enemy. Not that it ever wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jan 2, 2020 11:59:48 GMT
I agree that scenarios where there is an afterlife but no God(s) ruling over it are not uncommon. Members of some generally non-theistic religions tend to believe in an afterlife but without reference to a deity. However, my point is that the opposite is not very common at all. Generally speaking where there is a God or Gods, there is some form of afterlife. I haven't seen any exceptions offered up that hold up under scrutiny. Atheists have a problem with the term God and spirtuality. Theists see this as separate and away from them. Religion has done much to malign the authentic notion of God and spirituality, that it has now become its own worst enemy. Not that it ever wasn't. Not sure. Maybe it depends on the church and the priest? Some priests make religion boring and predictable, others can use their position to foster strength in the Community. Actually, what I like most about the priest at the church I go to is he has a sense of humor.
|
|
