Theodicy

[_spotlight]

Hi Spotlight,
You know how there are different types of love (Eros, Agape...) - so God is the highest love - unconditional.
The highest love is only striven for by faith/trial & error.
We often don't know what's best - most loving - so we just try our best, and live and learn.
I see this is the most healthy way of describing God, whether or not others do or not.

Or you could just talk about humans aspiring to that kind of love as being good in itself and leave the word god out completely. I don't see what the benefit is of using a word for a non existent being redefined in a manner that most people will miss what you are saying. Or maybe you are saying that there is a god, whatever that is, and without it this thing that we call unconditional love could not exist? I'm not sure where you stand based upon your posts really.

[_Amore]

Hi Spotlight,
You know how there are different types of love (Eros, Agape...) - so God is the highest love - unconditional.
The highest love is only striven for by faith/trial & error.
We often don't know what's best - most loving - so we just try our best, and live and learn.
I see this is the most healthy way of describing God, whether or not others do or not.

Or you could just talk about humans aspiring to that kind of love as being good in itself and leave the word god out completely. I don't see what the benefit is of using a word for a non existent being redefined in a manner that most people will miss what you are saying. Or maybe you are saying that there is a god, whatever that is, and without it this thing that we call unconditional love could not exist? I'm not sure where you stand based upon your posts really.

Yes, the latter - that through God - all GOoD comes.
God also just represents the mysterious - that which we don't know yet - which is a lot!

[_spotlight]

Yes, the latter - that through God - all GOoD comes.
God also just represents the mysterious - that which we don't know yet - which is a lot!

So as we continue to learn god continues to shrink? Why are the least religious countries with the least amount of faith in a god also the happiest I wonder.

[_Amore]

Yes, the latter - that through God - all GOoD comes.
God also just represents the mysterious - that which we don't know yet - which is a lot!

So as we continue to learn god continues to shrink? Why are the least religious countries with the least amount of faith in a god also the happiest I wonder.

How do you measure happiness? What statistics did you refer to? ;)

I didn't have a lot of time to finish my thought when I posted about God.
Then again, I don't think a life time can even scratch the surface.
To me, God is love based on objective truth.
As human beings, we will never get to objective truth because we are limited to our own non-omniscient subjectivity. Still, we can get a little closer to love based on objective truth, by learning to consider multiple perspectives and possibilities.

I'm really curious and I really don't mean to argue, but would like to know why you WANT there to be no god?

[_spotlight]

How do you measure happiness? What statistics did you refer to? ;)

Google happiest countries.

I didn't have a lot of time to finish my thought when I posted about God.
Then again, I don't think a life time can even scratch the surface.
To me, God is love based on objective truth.
As human beings, we will never get to objective truth because we are limited to our own non-omniscient subjectivity. Still, we can get a little closer to love based on objective truth, by learning to consider multiple perspectives and possibilities.

I'm really curious and I really don't mean to argue, but would like to know why you WANT there to be no god?

I would prefer to exist after death if it were a matter of preference, assuming we were as capable of life experience as something less than material bodies.

Would we be able to see even without the physical eyes that focus light and the nerves that send the signals to a brain? What about the ability to smell or taste? It would be a bland existence without those abilities. They consist of an ability to react to molecules where sight is an ability to react to photons. What of touch? I can't imagine life without touch can you? What if you could not feel anything but watch your "arm" pass through your companion when you reach out to touch them? Could I hear another speak or speak myself? That would require the medium of air and an ability to manipulate the same.

What do you do to make your life enjoyable now? Would you be able to do that when beyond the grave? How could you create without a medium to record your creations? Could you go for a hike in the woods? Would you feel the air blow in your face or smell the forest or push yourself to make it to the top of the mountain against the fatigue of a tired body? Where would be the sense of accomplishment without that struggle?

And what meaning would any of this have without the physical union of the sexes? And would that be shallow if it didn't involve offspring? And if there were offspring from eternally existing beings where do they all go? The universe would not be large enough to hold them. It is an impossibility. What meaning would your relationships have when they are continually diluted with time spent with countless others?

That should be enough for starters.

[_Amore]

How do you measure happiness? What statistics did you refer to? ;)

Google happiest countries.

I don't believe those results are valid since the pool they drew from is very slanted - as in those that can read & who would answer their questions, those who are on anti-depressants and who know what other factors that would cause the results to be inaccurate.

Anyway, as I've mentioned before, a study (which we both love :) ) sought to see what, if any, influence religious involvement had on physical healing. Of 3 groups, those extremely religiously involved and not religiously involved at all did poorest. The group that did best was those who were moderately religiously involved. Moderation in all things = happiness (according to Brother Aristotle).

I would prefer to exist after death if it were a matter of preference, assuming we were as capable of life experience as something less than material bodies.

Would we be able to see even without the physical eyes that focus light and the nerves that send the signals to a brain? What about the ability to smell or taste? It would be a bland existence without those abilities. They consist of an ability to react to molecules where sight is an ability to react to photons. What of touch? I can't imagine life without touch can you? What if you could not feel anything but watch your "arm" pass through your companion when you reach out to touch them? Could I hear another speak or speak myself? That would require the medium of air and an ability to manipulate the same.

I can't say that I really know, but what makes sense to me is that our conscious energy changes form. Trying to squeeze it to fit into our finite laws of this planet is ignoring the fact that everything's relative -that time is an illusion. Mind-boggling because we're so attached to what we think we KNOW. Maybe it helps us pretend and feel in control, when deep down, we know we're so out of control.

How can I be other than my body?
Especially if people have been judging me (for good or bad) based on how I look - for all my life?
I am NOT my body. "I AM THAT I AM."
Really, if you took away my arms, my legs, my entire body - I am that consciousness that exists.

What do you do to make your life enjoyable now? Would you be able to do that when beyond the grave? How could you create without a medium to record your creations? Could you go for a hike in the woods? Would you feel the air blow in your face or smell the forest or push yourself to make it to the top of the mountain against the fatigue of a tired body? Where would be the sense of accomplishment without that struggle?

All deep questions. I'd like to know how you'd hypothesize the answers, if you had to argue for conscious energy changing form after death.
I love music - and I do love to hike.
I imagine when I am not limited to a body - but just consciousness - I can go anywhere I focus on.
Must my creations be recorded? Why? Why not create just for the sake of creating? What about the unseen but influentially real creations - those sparks of intuitive inspiration? Isn't that what really make the world go 'round - what motivates people?

What would existence be without opposites - without the struggle, as you mentioned?
Is it a realization that life is but a dream - and the good and bad are all part of the whole?

And what meaning would any of this have without the physical union of the sexes? And would that be shallow if it didn't involve offspring? And if there were offspring from eternally existing beings where do they all go? The universe would not be large enough to hold them. It is an impossibility. What meaning would your relationships have when they are continually diluted with time spent with countless others?

Those questions apply in this life - so I think it best to answer them accordingly first, before considering the mysterious possibilities.
I'd say the #1 religious worship, by far, is the god of romance. I have been a loyal adherent since I was young - only recently have I realized - no, I'm still hooked, even if disappointed.
It's not just about reproduction - though no doubt it plays a part subconsciously - in collective conscience or whatever.
Maybe sexual intercourse is one of the few times when the communication is so deep and relating so exact, when it all doesn't depend on symbols (words, gestures). So, potentially, sex is most direct communication - and thus most meaningful - if both are feeling it.

I think about children people have lost - even in miscarriage.
Where do they go? Where are their consciousnesses? Are they moving on to another form of expression? Are they in limbo - how is it when time is not?

Why do you think that the universe is not large enough to hold them?
Do you know how large the universe is?
What if this universe can hold countless consciousnesses - as long as they are only conscious of this universe - and don't think outside it? Maybe the only things the vessel of the universe cannot hold is that which is conscious that more exists - that which can fathom the seemingly impossible, the absurd, but real possibilities?

Spotlight, you asked something that I've been thinking about lately: "What meaning would your relationships have when they are continually diluted with time spent with countless others?"
If I am intimate with many - can I really be intimate with anyone?
Ought I close myself off to you, since I don't know you - and maybe you'll hurt me first chance you get.
Or is it better that I be open to any and all - and allow myself to learn with others?
Another very legit study suggested that most people cannot maintain more than 50 relationships. I'd suggest it's a lot less - at least relationships that are more meaningful. But most people are and only know how to be superficial friends. So, in the day in and day out, it's best to enjoy superficial relating over being a hermit. And then those deep connections are more meaningful anyway. You know, "Opposition in all things" - the basis of gratitude/joy.

P.S. I know you love science, and you probably love it having had the experience of baptism. Consider the possibility that baptism is like the placebo or Dumbo's feather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy1NQx2bJE

[_LittleNipper]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

God could have prevented evil, but then He would have interrupted your birth and my birth as well. We ARE the product of a sinful environment. Think about it this way: God foreknew that by allowing Lucifer to carry out his self-promotion would establish a world in which beings would be born who would come to love GOD regardless. And additionally, to and through which GOD could have a much more personal special relationship. Of course, there are those who will never love GOD regardless. And so GOD both foreknew and predestined by allowing Creation to continue as it has.

The question might be asked, why any author would write a book where bad things occur. The reality is they are far more interesting. While sad, troubling, and terrible things happen ---- the finale is so much more rewarding!

[_spotlight]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus

God could have prevented evil, but then He would have interrupted your birth and my birth as well. We ARE the product of a sinful environment. Think about it this way: God foreknew that by allowing Lucifer to carry out his self-promotion would establish a world in which beings would be born who would come to love GOD regardless. And additionally, to and through which GOD could have a much more personal special relationship. Of course, there are those who will never love GOD regardless. And so GOD both foreknew and predestined by allowing Creation to continue as it has.

The question might be asked, why any author would write a book where bad things occur. The reality is they are far more interesting. While sad, troubling, and terrible things happen ---- the finale is so much more rewarding!

I recall a series about the meerkats of Africa where a snake has entered the meerkat den while the adults were out foraging. The mother races in to battle the snake and in the process gets bitten only to die a little while later. But she managed to kill the snake and save her offspring.

From the point of view of the meerkat the snake was evil. From the point of view of the snake the meerkat was evil denying it a necessary meal to sustain its life. We would likely side with the meerkat as we are more closely related to meerkats than to snakes.

Meerkat god could have prevented evil, but then he would have interrupted the meerkat's birth and the snake's birth as well. Think about it this way: meerkat god foreknew that by allowing the snake to have a life of its own that bad things would happen to meerkats.

Why would any author write a book where bad things occur? The reality is they are far more interesting. While sad, troubling, and terrible things happen ---- the finale is so much more rewarding!

Of course the finale has to be viewed from the perspective of meerkats and meerkat god in order to make any sense of it in terms of ultimate justice for meerkats. When viewed from the vantage point of snakes and the snake god the ultimate finale is quite different.

[_Franktalk]

Spotlight,

It seems to me that your story indicates there is no God. At least one that intervenes in the affairs of humans and animals. I would like to point out that in recent days we have not seen any miracles in our daily lives. No flames from heaven or the land opening and swallowing up the bad guys. It seems that these things are recorded in the scriptures but are unseen today. So those who believe in miracles as stated in the Bible must believe that God was active at some point but now is dormant. This change in behavior from God must be explained in order for the God character to make sense.

The other issue is one of fairness. How can a God judge the world when the world is not fair or balanced in the least? It is fairly obvious that there is no level playing field down here. So some are challenged and some are not? This has to be explained as well to believe in the God character.

These issues drove me to question everything about the God character. So I set out to know what or who this God character really is. In time I did form some views on the nature of reality that explains all of these issues for me. But I know many that saw the problems and just threw everything away.

[_LittleNipper]

[God could have prevented evil, but then He would have interrupted your birth and my birth as well. We ARE the product of a sinful environment. Think about it this way: God foreknew that by allowing Lucifer to carry out his self-promotion would establish a world in which beings would be born who would come to love GOD regardless. And additionally, to and through which GOD could have a much more personal special relationship. Of course, there are those who will never love GOD regardless. And so GOD both foreknew and predestined by allowing Creation to continue as it has.

The question might be asked, why any author would write a book where bad things occur. The reality is they are far more interesting. While sad, troubling, and terrible things happen ---- the finale is so much more rewarding!

I recall a series about the meerkats of Africa where a snake has entered the meerkat den while the adults were out foraging. The mother races in to battle the snake and in the process gets bitten only to die a little while later. But she managed to kill the snake and save her offspring.

From the point of view of the meerkat the snake was evil. From the point of view of the snake the meerkat was evil denying it a necessary meal to sustain its life. We would likely side with the meerkat as we are more closely related to meerkats than to snakes.

Meerkat god could have prevented evil, but then he would have interrupted the meerkat's birth and the snake's birth as well. Think about it this way: meerkat god foreknew that by allowing the snake to have a life of its own that bad things would happen to meerkats.

Why would any author write a book where bad things occur? The reality is they are far more interesting. While sad, troubling, and terrible things happen ---- the finale is so much more rewarding!

Of course the finale has to be viewed from the perspective of meerkats and meerkat god in order to make any sense of it in terms of ultimate justice for meerkats. When viewed from the vantage point of snakes and the snake god the ultimate finale is quite different.

But you fail to realize ---living under the 21st Century notion that animals are equal to humans. This is clearly the result of evolutionary thinking (everything is biologically an ancestor in some way or another). The Biblical perspective is that animals were created for man and to tend the environment. They are as lovely as flowers and as ugly as weeds, but they all had an original created purpose apart from man to fulfill various ecological needs. Since the fall the meerkat and the snake are at odds in keeping their population in check and man worships creatures/creation rather than the Creator.