Theodicy

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Amore
_Emeritus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Amore »

Amore wrote:God is not some external sky daddy.

Chap wrote:So, like, not a deity as conceived by the immense mass of humanity now and in past centuries, then? I've been saying for a while that nothing like that existed. That's why I'm an atheist.

Well, I'd be atheist too, by those terms, except I'm not, because I cannot pretend to understand objective truth and pure love (which is God). Just because I don't like common but dysfunctional ideas of God, doesn't mean I dismiss the search to learn truth and to appreciate that I will never know everything.

Chap wrote:"Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen."....

And your redefined 'God' is clearly not the deity to whom Jesus evidently imagined existed when he prayed like that - I mean, 'Our Father, which art in heaven' is pretty obviously a 'sky daddy', isn't he?

No, and I can't know for sure what Jesus meant by God, or Father in Heaven.
But I will tell you that the other day, when surrounded by TBMs, I prayed to Heavenly Father and closed in the name of Jesus Christ, even though when I pray, I begin, "Dear Heavenly Father and Mother" and close, "in the spirit of Christ-like love, Amen." I prayed so they'd understand and feel the intent of my prayer without being distracted by what is unfamiliar to them. (But with my own family, I pray as I feel is right.)

My guess is that Jesus understood more than he let on. He was already up against centuries of crazy tradition (many laws of Moses). He had to meet people where they were. Speaking above them would be pointless. Although he referred to God the father, Jesus taught that "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation... the kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU" - like Buddha taught and it is likely Jesus was influenced by Buddhism. Buddha could be considered Atheist, if you consider God ONLY as a tyrannical sky-daddy, but if you consider him believing in divinity at all, then he was not Atheist, because Buddha never denied that god existed.

Do you know the story, "Life of Pi"?
It's about a guy who finds truths in Hinduism, Islam and Christianity, and another significant message of the story was that the God in us prefers to see the GOoD in humanity, even when opposition can bring out evil.
I see wisdom in finding and incorporating truth wherever it's found - to me that is worshipping God.
And I also see wisdom in "functional illusions" - it doesn't matter so much how you connect spiritually - as long as it helps you and others in positive ways. Really, we are always thinking in subjective (illusional) ways anyway - so we might as well have our thoughts work for us, rather than against us.

God, truth, love - they are subjective terms that are largely based on imagination - limited perspective.
Really, I imagine God may be beyond what I can fathom, but I also acknowledge that what matters is if I connect spiritually. I kind of do what Buddha suggested - cherish the inspiring aspects of the religion of your childhood because that is how you tend to resonate best. I resonate by imagining Heavenly Father and Mother - spiritual parents that are much more loving and unconditional than my own parents, but in some ways similar. The more I believe, the more I feel intuitive guidance - and can accomplish more than with just logical skepticism.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Chap »

Look, do whatever makes you relate lovingly to others, and feel comfortable as a human being in your (our) all too brief trip from cradle to grave.

Me, I don't feel comfortable with language that might suggest to others that one is still OK with the very bad-tempered, jealous, and occasionally abusive sky-daddy of the three Abrahamic religions.

Why don't we leave him out of it and just talk about people. Aren't they enough?

Amore wrote:Buddha never denied that god existed.


May I take you up on that? The historical Buddha lived in a world where there were a lot of gods. There was however no 'God' in the sense known to Jews, Christians and Muslims - the wholly other creator and sustainer of all, the source of moral order and the ONLY,ONLY being that must ever be worshiped. For Buddhists, the gods are also subject to birth, death and rebirth, but on a much longer time-scale than humans, and they too need enlightenment and release from the karmic cycle. Those fearsome statues at the gates of some Buddhist temple in East Asia are deities who converted to Buddhism and now protect the Buddhist Law.

Amore wrote: ... what Buddha suggested - cherish the inspiring aspects of the religion of your childhood because that is how you tend to resonate best.


I don't know that the Buddha actually said that, but it seems reasonable enough to me, and who is to tell you to do otherwise?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Amore
_Emeritus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Amore »

You still misunderstood, based on your preconceived biases.

God is defined in so many ways, but you insist on the most ridiculous one, because it's easier to refute.
That is logical fallacy - and I've learned that when one is ignorant or in denial of engaging in logical fallacy it is pointless to discuss with them.
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Theodicy

Post by _spotlight »

Amore
Denying god does not mean denying good/love. It means denying god as an explanation for good/love.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Chap »

Amore wrote:You still misunderstood, based on your preconceived biases.

God is defined in so many ways, but you insist on the most ridiculous one, because it's easier to refute.
That is logical fallacy - and I've learned that when one is ignorant or in denial of engaging in logical fallacy it is pointless to discuss with them.


If we define God in the way that you call 'the most ridiculous one' - that is, the meaning you characterize as referring to 'some external sky daddy', then we are agreed that no such entity exists. Do I have that right?

OK - so the being that the great majority of people in large parts of the world have believed in (and mostly still do) does not exist. That's not due to some kind of decision on my part - it's just a fact, and a pretty significant one, isn't it?

So now you want to use the word 'God' to mean something else. Fine, go ahead, since the word is now, in effect 'to let'. I just don't see what you get out of using the word in this way, since so far as I can see you don't need it, and could say all you want to say by simply talking about human beings. What's the point?

Try not to be rude to me in your answer, since this here is Celestial, and we are supposed to play nice.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Amore
_Emeritus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Amore »

spotlight wrote:Amore
Denying god does not mean denying good/love. It means denying god as an explanation for good/love.

But "God is love." Not only is God repeatedly defined as love in one of the most believed in books (Bible), but it is also a healthier definition than tyranical grandpa in the sky.
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Theodicy

Post by _spotlight »

Amore wrote:
spotlight wrote:Amore
Denying god does not mean denying good/love. It means denying god as an explanation for good/love.

But "God is love." Not only is God repeatedly defined as love in one of the most believed in books (Bible), but it is also a healthier definition than tyranical grandpa in the sky.

If god = love then why have two words for the same thing? Are you truly not trying to arrive at the argument that god >= love and is something more besides just the love?
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Theodicy

Post by _spotlight »

This is not directed at Amore but the idea of god being love seems to be missed by many of those who claim to serve this god.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_bcuzbcuz
_Emeritus
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: Theodicy

Post by _bcuzbcuz »

Amore wrote:
Maksutov wrote:God is a psychological construct of human beings that can be used in positive ways.
Or it can be used to justify bad things.

True.
This is precisely why it's so important to redefine God in healthier terms.
God is love.
Love is appreciating what is, while striving for what is best, through trial & error (active faith/hypothesis).
None of us know what is really "best" - we just learn as we go.

And in the instances where we don't choose, like natural disasters, God is being malevolent.

God is a truthfull process fulfilling itself.
The reality is that if an apple becomes ripe enough, it will fall off the tree and land on the ground.
It's not God's fault, it's just part of the laws of nature.
Truth happens.

Maybe the reason why Jesus (& others like him) can "forgive them for they know not what they do" is because he realized "truth happens." If he intuitively understood the natural sequence of events that lead up to someone doing evil or something bad happening, he would be fighting against truth/reality if he were to get mad. I don't get mad that 2+2=4, and similarly, why would I get mad about other natural sequence of events?

That's not to say that I understand, forgive and have serenity about much.
There is opposition in all things - we need it - we thrive best with it, even if it is sometimes painful or annoying.


Wow, I feel all fuzzy inside.
Must be god....or just fuzzy thinking
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
_Amore
_Emeritus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Theodicy

Post by _Amore »

spotlight wrote:If god = love then why have two words for the same thing? Are you truly not trying to arrive at the argument that god >= love and is something more besides just the love?

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.
Post Reply