Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is God being criticized? That's not even possible.
I would say it's not possible because it wouldn't be valid. Of course this topic deals abstractly, and people do criticize God or a god/gods. I argue creation cannot legitimately find fault with God, particularly in the abstract.
We still have no right to criticize what He chooses to do. If God or a god/gods feel they have a fatherly obligation towards their creation, who are we to say different. Now my human parents don't own me in the sense Yahweh owns us, but I could be an evil child and abuse my parents. Should my earthly parents just roll over and accept that abuse? Respect and humility is in order even from an earthly sense. How much more for our maker?
Your rationale relies on the unsupportable and unrealistic belief that the scriptures are an inerrant and infallible recording of God's motives, desires, and commands. I do NOT! I believe Jesus is the ONE AND ONLY Word of God (Logos). He revealed and unambiguously demonstrated God's True Nature of agape love and forgiveness on the Cross despite our egregious criticism and condemnation of His Son (Himself). Human vanity and hubris (NOT humility) are the actual source of such acceptance of barbarity and ignorance. As Jesus said, we know not what we do!
This discussion reveals some awful things about our human ability to misunderstand God, in the abstract or not! We have made the concept of a Creator completely alien to human experience. I avoid using the term Creator for that reason. I believe that is why Jesus chose to emphasize Abba (Our Father). Abba captures the concept better than Paul's "Pot and Potter" version. We are not inanimate unthinking, unfeeling pots! Fathers DO have a responsibility to their children above what they capriciously want to do to them! Of course, I have the benefit of actually encountering God's consciousness and have no doubt whatsoever about His agape love for us. I find the Calvinist God to be an abomination of human ignorance bearing no resemblance to humility whatsoever.
With entire sympathy for your position, what you demonstrate is that you want a God who satisfies your very human notions of what a God should be like - a Big Daddy In the Sky who is the most loving and kindly Big Daddy imaginable. Anything other than this is unacceptable and unworthy of belief.
It's an entirely manmade religion with a God made in your image of the perfect Big Daddy. You attempt to avoid this by insisting that Big Daddy has revealed himself to you in a mystical vision. Hence, the human MysticPhD is merely reporting what Big Daddy has revealed.
Insofar as your personal beliefs are concerned, this is fine. If I'd had a profound experience involving a Big Daddy, I'm sure it would factor heavily into my theism. If I thought it were absolutely compelling and decisive, my religion would be Big Daddyism. I might even proselytize for Big Daddy as you do here.
You, however, go the next step and insist that your Big Daddy is in fact the God of Christianity. All Christian teachings end experiences (including mystical ones) that don't conform to your Big Daddyism are primitive, barbaric and inauthentic. It simply won't seem plausible to most people that you alone have been blessed with this knowledge and that 2000 years of Christian saints, mystics, leaders, scholars and laypersons have all been primitive, barbaric and delusional.
Sure, Big Daddy is appealing - more appealing, perhaps, than the judgmental God of mainstream Christianity and certainly more appealing than the God of hardline Calvinism. But he's appealing precisely because he's what you and most people want a God to be like. He's precisely the God most people would invent for themselves - and would say that you have invented for yourself. He's just about exactly 1/2 the God of mainstream Christianity - but that missing 1/2 is rather important, and Christianity is just a big ball of fluff without it.
If there is a God, he is who he is. We have to take him as he has really revealed himself to be. Whoever and whatever he is, he is sovereign over his creation. I think this thread is valuable as a reminder of these truths. We don't get to invent a God that satisfies our human notions of the way we think a God ought to be, although the temptation to do this can be almost irresistible. Perhaps God really and truly is an entirely nonjudgmental Big Daddy In the Sky, but this is not who Christianity has ever understood him to be.
With entire sympathy for your position, what you demonstrate is that you want a God who satisfies your very human notions of what a God should be like - a Big Daddy In the Sky who is the most loving and kindly Big Daddy imaginable. Anything other than this is unacceptable and unworthy of belief.
It's an entirely manmade religion with a God made in your image of the perfect Big Daddy. You attempt to avoid this by insisting that Big Daddy has revealed himself to you in a mystical vision. Hence, the human MysticPhD is merely reporting what Big Daddy has revealed.
Insofar as your personal beliefs are concerned, this is fine. If I'd had a profound experience involving a Big Daddy, I'm sure it would factor heavily into my theism. If I thought it were absolutely compelling and decisive, my religion would be Big Daddyism. I might even proselytize for Big Daddy as you do here.
You, however, go the next step and insist that your Big Daddy is in fact the God of Christianity. All Christian teachings end experiences (including mystical ones) that don't conform to your Big Daddyism are primitive, barbaric and inauthentic. It simply won't seem plausible to most people that you alone have been blessed with this knowledge and that 2000 years of Christian saints, mystics, leaders, scholars and laypersons have all been primitive, barbaric and delusional.
Sure, Big Daddy is appealing - more appealing, perhaps, than the judgmental God of mainstream Christianity and certainly more appealing than the God of hardline Calvinism. But he's appealing precisely because he's what you and most people want a God to be like. He's precisely the God most people would invent for themselves - and would say that you have invented for yourself. He's just about exactly 1/2 the God of mainstream Christianity - but that missing 1/2 is rather important, and Christianity is just a big ball of fluff without it.
If there is a God, he is who he is. We have to take him as he has really revealed himself to be. Whoever and whatever he is, he is sovereign over his creation. I think this thread is valuable as a reminder of these truths. We don't get to invent a God that satisfies our human notions of the way we think a God ought to be, although the temptation to do this can be almost irresistible. Perhaps God really and truly is an entirely nonjudgmental Big Daddy In the Sky, but this is not who Christianity has ever understood him to be.
To the highlighted portion, we didn't create out children. None of us spoke our children into existence, or formed them from nothing. They came about through processes our creator established. We come from him, and thus everything comes from him. Which means everything and everyone belongs to him. So no, we don't have the right to do what we will as you say. Only the creator has the right.
You keep making the assertion that the creator has the right to behave immorally, but you never explain why.
You also keep ignoring the fact that once a god created humans, objective truths will follow, including moral truths. In fact you do not need a god, once people evolved as a communal animal, then moral objective truths will exist. And an all knowing god would know this.
And that is why I have the right to criticize your idea of a god, because only an evil god can escape the implications of it's own creations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Murder is the taking of life, something that doesn't belong to you. Yet if the author takes life, he is taking back what belongs to him. That wouldn't be murder. This comes back to my point in that most of you are not humbling yourselves.
So your god has the right to kill my wife and 2 children, which would cause me great pain? And I should be humble that such an evil monster existed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
God/the creator is not a person like you are. He is not some joe blow off the street. He is the one who created the sun. We all know the immense power and reactions going on all the time in the sun. That kind of energy goes well beyond anything we can achieve through our technology. Yet the sun ain't nothing compared to bigger and brighter stars out there. It fries the brain just thinking about what is out there, how much more the creator! What kind of power would he have! He could stand next to the sun, and make it look like its not shining at all. Who are we to criticize anything he got going on, o wretched men and women we are!
We are moral people, that is why we have the right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
To the highlighted portion here, if the creator god in fact enjoys torturing, it really wouldn't matter what we do. Its not like you could fight against him. Whether we are good or bad, we will be tortured. I would humble myself. I certainly wouldn't want to draw attention to myself. As they say the nail that sticks up is usually the one that gets hammered down.
Evasion. Why should humble ourselves for such an evil god? Again, would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Now do I need a god to make me a nice person? If you're asking me personally about my trust in Yahweh, which is getting into specifics, I need His power to be a righteous person. His righteousness is my righteousness. The world He created for us was without death. The problem came in with the fall. So in order to return to how things were in the beginning, I need His strength. He is the Creator, and by His power are we made perfect humans.
Now we talk about OT law and say it is immoral. Well, Jesus came and fulfilled OT law. Did Jesus kill anyone while He was here? Did He steal anything? No, but according to reports about Him, He literally set people free. He healed folks and raised the dead. He restored limbs to people without or lost them. All He did was good. By Yahweh's power, we become like this. I think that kind of morality exceeds what normal people can do.
No, I am asking why you need a god to make you do nice things.
We still have no right to criticize what He chooses to do. If God or a god/gods feel they have a fatherly obligation towards their creation, who are we to say different. Now my human parents don't own me in the sense Yahweh owns us, but I could be an evil child and abuse my parents. Should my earthly parents just roll over and accept that abuse? Respect and humility is in order even from an earthly sense. How much more for our maker?
If there are no gods, just natural forces, should we humble ourselves to them?
Okay, I'll throw something into this fantasy game of pretend.
How about this god created the universe and all of the living creatures in it in order to observe it in action and learn something like, oh, I don't know... morality, maybe?... and this god has turned to be a slow learner?
In a case like this, those criticizing or turning their back on this god could be the very ones who eventually save the universe and its long-suffering creatures, provided that this god is actually paying attention.
I notice no one mention the other aspect I brought up, concerning the insects. We kill them all the time, and are not criticized for it. Which again as I said, for the most part we receive no criticism. There are those who would argue for insects' right to live. That we should place an insect on the outside of one's home, instead of killing them. Heehee, of course if we do remove the insect to the outside, they could end up dying just from the immediate shift of atmosphere. The best place for them may be inside our homes.
So what right do we have to take the insect's life? We didn't create the insect, we do not own the insect. Assuming it is harmless to us, the insect itself has a right to criticize us if it could. Yet most wouldn't care. Even from our moral standpoint, we wouldn't say a person who killed the insect is a murderer. If we feel this way about that, how much more right does our creator have to do as he wishes with his creation? Would you say it is not right for a person to kill a house spider?
This is the part that made me think of Buddhist Monks. So I looked it up.
"According to Buddhist sutras, every sentient being, not only human beings but every sentient being, from tiny insects up to even the highest gods, possesses buddha nature. Buddha nature is the true nature of our minds. It is pure. It is never stained by obscurations. Therefore, every living being, when it meets with the right causes, right conditions, and right methods, has the potential to attain perfect enlightenment, buddhahood."
"Becoming sensitive/ kind to all forms of life is the sign you are walking the path . Deeds speak louder than rhetoric, those clever minds learnt the letters only; true Dharma followers learnt the teachings of Buddha, including the teachings of Karma and Rebirth in Buddha's original meaning.
When you treat them with kindness, they return you with kindness."
There is a difference between religion and philosophy. imo, your op is attempting to engage both into one, which doesn't work. Philosophy is the truth of love. Religion is a belief that despite evidence that refute the belief, the believer will hold fast to their convictions. imo, trying to get a religious person to expand their pool of thought, is a fools errand.
Philosophy on the other hand is all about, imagining the possibilities and engaging in thought exercises. (why is a door a door?)
"According to Buddhist sutras, every sentient being, not only human beings but every sentient being, from tiny insects up to even the highest gods, possesses buddha nature. Buddha nature is the true nature of our minds. It is pure. It is never stained by obscurations. Therefore, every living being, when it meets with the right causes, right conditions, and right methods, has the potential to attain perfect enlightenment, buddhahood."
"Becoming sensitive/ kind to all forms of life is the sign you are walking the path . Deeds speak louder than rhetoric, those clever minds learnt the letters only; true Dharma followers learnt the teachings of Buddha, including the teachings of Karma and Rebirth in Buddha's original meaning.
When you treat them with kindness, they return you with kindness."
There is a difference between religion and philosophy. imo, your op is attempting to engage both into one, which doesn't work. Philosophy is the truth of love. Religion is a belief that despite evidence that refute the belief, the believer will hold fast to their convictions. imo, trying to get a religious person to expand their pool of thought, is a fools errand.
Philosophy on the other hand is all about, imagining the possibilities and engaging in thought exercises. (why is a door a door?)
Just want to toss in that there is not universal agreement about what sentience actually means, and is a difference in the typical definition and the Buddhist meaning.
Last edited by phetaroi; 11-17-2023 at 11:36 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Deeds speak louder than rhetoric, those clever minds learnt the letters only; true Dharma followers learnt the teachings of Buddha, including the teachings of Karma and Rebirth in Buddha's original meaning.