John 1:12

[KarenM]

I got a book for Christmas called JOHN 1:12. I was engulfed by it! It's about bizarre and supernatural events that happened in Dallas Tx. I looked up the scripture in the Bible and basically says for those who seek God or believe in Him, God embraces them as His children. What a beautiful thing to know that He loves us so much! :nod:

[subterranean]

I understand what you mean Karen. However at the moment, I'm still shocked with the number of dead people cause of the Tsunami quake, which up till now already reach 20,000, with the great possibility to increase. So I'm wondering whether God really loves us, humans.

[laurenmichaels]

What a fool headed thing to say! You blame God for deaths, you blame God for natural disasters but if you dig into your pockets or ask ANY NATION WITH SATELLITES ORBITTING THE EARTH FOR GEOPHYSICAL DISTURBANCES. WHY THEIRS DIDN'T TRACT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, alot of deaths can be prevented by giving to a child in need or having advanced warning of tsunami danger.

So get off your smug, intellectually righteous than God high horse!

By the way Karen, where can I buy that book?

[Dyrwen]

For 1. Scientists had some idea of the earthquake when it occured. They thought it was only around a 7.0 and wasn't capable of producing a tsunami and by the time they realized it had, it was too late to alert anyone in the region to cause anything of a useful effort. For 2. Considering the Christian god is potentially ominscient and omnipotent, one can blame God for not stopping it and being there when it happened, if one chooses to believe in a god, that is.

Calm down the caps, it isn't needed. And do your research before looking into something with that much emotional appealment added on beforehand.

[trismegistus]

I understand what you mean Karen. However at the moment, I'm still shocked with the number of dead people cause of the Tsunami quake, which up till now already reach 20,000, with the great possibility to increase. So I'm wondering whether God really loves us, humans.
Is it your suggestion that a Deity could only love his worshippers by letting them live forever? Life ends and claiming that deaths are a sign that God (or whatever) doesn't care seems like poor logic to me. How do you see the two as related?


Considering the Christian god is potentially ominscient and omnipotent, one can blame God for not stopping it and being there when it happened
But why would or should he? Is it your contention that a god's job is to stop people from dying?

[Dyrwen]

But why would or should he? Is it your contention that a god's job is to stop people from dying?
Not at all, but the same people who claim the Christian god is ominscient and omnipotent also try to claim "God is love" i.e. benevolent and that somehow letting them suffer in life is a-okay because they'll just go to heaven when they die anyway. Personally speaking, I find that line of thinking completely demoralizing to any realistic person trying to live underneathe God as one to follow the most general moral codes.

I'm fine with accepting that God, if it were there, is just an a-hole and really doesn't mind what happens in our lives because we've still got a whole eternity in Heaven in Hell when we get there to deal with, but I've rarely heard people openly claim that God is amoral and a butcher, even though their own book of the Bible tends to confirm it. As they say: It's God's will when people die, a term that shouldn't be thrown around loosely if one doesn't one their god getting blamed for not doing anything about it.

But eh, I've got a lot of issues with Christianity, probably why I never followed it. If one is going to be a moral creature, one better be damn well clear as to what their intentions are. I'm pretty amoral, but at least I'm consistent. heh

Edit: Some like to refer to the The Riddle of Epicurus; "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?"

[trismegistus]

the same people who claim the Christian god is ominscient and omnipotent also try to claim "God is love" i.e. benevolent and that somehow letting them suffer in life is a-okay because they'll just go to heaven when they die anyway. Personally speaking, I find that line of thinking completely demoralizing
Meh. We'll have to disagree on that. I've found real value in the suffering I've gone through in my life. I might not like the sensation of suffering, but when I'm honest about it I cannot deny that a number of life-changing realizations have come to me through my periods of suffering. These are things that I simply couldn't have conceived without the pain that generated them, and without doubt the whole way I live my life is richer and more vibrant because of them. That's a gift not a curse. (I don't know about the whole irrelevance-of-life-because-of-the-afterlife thing. From a deity's perspective it has complete merit. When we're talking eternity, ANYTHING that hppens in our time here is less than microscopic in importance. But whatever. IMO suffering has its merits in this life, so who cares about what comes next?)


I'm fine with accepting that God, if it were there, is just an a-hole and really doesn't mind what happens in our lives because we've still got a whole eternity in Heaven in Hell when we get there to deal with, but I've rarely heard people openly claim that God is amoral and a butcher
Well, I don't want to start a war over diction, but the very terms you use strongly suggest you're not fine with accepting that God. But in any case, I don't see how a non-involved God equates to an amoral God, much less a butcher. I'd argue that a really loving God who is not a slave master MUST be non-involved even while loving ... ahem ... all his children. (Sorry for the cliche.) See below.


As they say: It's God's will when people die
Yeah, I see that as sloppy or cowardly thinking. I don't see God as particularly willing life or death on any individual. In fact I think Christ (speaking as God or merely prophet) tried to discourage that portrayal of God with the Prodigal Son parable. What you have there is a Deity-as-father. You go off into the world and take your beatings (many of which are products of your own choices), but your home is still there waiting for you. That's love too, and it's pretty easily argued that it's a greater kind of love than the restrictive, imprisoning kind which MUST be the result of a god who takes a role in everything we do.



Some like to refer to the The Riddle of Epicurus; "... Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent ...."
This is where I'd argue that Epicurus falls short. It is not axiomatic that because God is not willing to prevent "evil" that he is malevolent. Certainly those who want to be sheltered and coddled from all hurts would call the father who didn't do that a bad father at best and malevolent at worst. At the same time, living a life being held under a blanket is exactly that: it's not living life at all. It's imprisonment.

A good parent understands that there are great things to be attained from pain and confronting evil. Only a blind fool would try to prevent his child from experiencing these as well as the good things of life. If the parent is actually successful (and of course an omniscient and omnipotent God would be entirely successful if he chose to do so), what kind of being would you create? It certainly wouldn't be cognizant of the important things of life and spirituality. It would be an infantile "thing" which could subsist only by sucking at the teat of its parent. Would ANY of us wish that on our children?

[Dyrwen]

Meh. We'll have to disagree on that. I've found real value in the suffering I've gone through in my life. I might not like the sensation of suffering, but when I'm honest about it I cannot deny that a number of life-changing realizations have come to me through my periods of suffering. These are things that I simply couldn't have conceived without the pain that generated them, and without doubt the whole way I live my life is richer and more vibrant because of them. That's a gift not a curse.
I agree with you in the merits of suffering. I'm a masochist myself and haven't personally felt empathy in a long time, so I do know that one can live just fine with suffering and it isn't any god's place to stop it just to be nice. Mainly, The problem most folks tend to have is the emotional response of: Why do bad things happen if God can stop them? It is a futile argument for most to make, but it still occurs more than one would like to think. Yes we all must suffer, we all must have our troubles, bad things must happen. But I use that sort of thinking to equate my atheistic train of thought, not that "God needs us to experience life and can't stop our free will from changing life's outcomes."

My whole issue with any deity having some control over the moral highground is the "purposeless is life, when an afterlife is guaranteed" line of thought I brought up. The point is that if we suffer, so what? If we kill everyone we hate, so what? If we love everyone in our existence, so what? The afterlife awaits us nonetheless. A friend of mine once said "I live my life to learn, when I die, if there is nothing after, I will not care. If there IS something, death will be opening a whole new opportunity for learning. Where is the downside?" Be it Heaven or Hell, any afterlife is a better life than no life at all. The concept of there being a god that controls the moral standards though, yet by doing so makes life only meaningful in figuring out which afterlife awaits them, really makes me sense the meaningless one's choices in life become when there is a god involved.

Probably just something to do with control. The moral test is a control and the outcome is merely a weighted punishment or reward based on how well we scored in his moral achievements. There's an underlying complexity and misunderstanding at how any god would work in the first place, so that might be why I'm not making much sense, if there's some confusion.



Well, I don't want to start a war over diction, but the very terms you use strongly suggest you're not fine with accepting that God. But in any case, I don't see how a non-involved God equates to an amoral God, much less a butcher. I'd argue that a really loving God who is not a slave master MUST be non-involved even while loving ... ahem ... all his children. (Sorry for the cliche.)
Of course I'm not fine with it, but personally I'd find a god willing to harm its "children" honestly and not beat around the bush with us throwing around details of "God's love" and "Righteousness" and all that crap when they didn't really mean it. Simply put: The Old Testament God killed a lot of people and was fine with it because that's just how God is, what he says goes. Yet the image people portray of God nowadays seems too happy-go-lucky, in it for the love, but watch out for hell-type of guy with some conflicting messages. That is how I equate the non involved God. God once got involved all the time in daily affairs, or so the books say, yet now he's not. So people naturally assume he doesn't care and is amoral to our needs. Not everyone believes that the free will to cause our own suffering and pain is justified. Some folks really want to live a life without pain or loss and may very well be idealistic because of it, but still, it messes with their perception of God.

I'm fine with a deistic and non involved god. The point is: We're talking about "God" as in the Christian god. As in: Flooded the Earth to kill some people God. As in kicked people out of Eden for learning the difference between good and evil. As in sent bears to murder 40 children God. Comparing that god with what people believe God to be nowadays is a hard thing to manage in contrast, so I'm doing what I can with what I got.

If God were willing to edit his text to say: 'Hey, I'm not getting involved here. Free will and everything. I love you people, but you gotta live your lives the way you truly want to so that I might judge you once the afterlife reaches you. Good luck, follow these commandments.' The problem is: He didn't do that and those following the texts are following mistranslations, misinterpretations, blah de blah, there's a lot of problems with the religion's basis right now and that's the issue at hand, I'd suppose.



That's love too, and it's pretty easily argued that it's a greater kind of love than the restrictive, imprisoning kind which MUST be the result of a god who takes a role in everything we do.
I know. See above. The god you talk about is all well and good, but that isn't the generalized Christian god. It may be how you interpret it to be, which is fine, then we'll just disagree, but I tend to go straight into text most of the time, which dictates a different god than most perceive, even with the interpretations leaning to the good messages.



A good parent understands that there are great things to be attained from pain and confronting evil. Only a blind fool would try to prevent his child from experiencing these as well as the good things of life. If the parent is actually successful (and of course an omniscient and omnipotent God would be entirely successful if he chose to do so), what kind of being would you create? It certainly wouldn't be cognizant of the important things of life and spirituality. It would be an infantile "thing" which could subsist only by sucking at the teat of its parent. Would ANY of us wish that on our children?
I think there's a problem in that: I've heard a lot of folks claim that heaven will be many things, but the same. Some claim we'll all just praise God forever. Others that we'll be perfectly happy, which means no bad, no good, no free will. And of course most just say: Heaven is what you really want it to be. The whole good and bad experiences in life, I can understand, but the problem becomes that once we do get into the afterlife: will God wipe the memories we had and replace them with happy thoughts? Will he let us live out our days in Heaven happily, but experiencing some bad and some good, just as usual? There's all sorts of questions in that line of thought that are still just "I don't know" answers.

All I know is that in life we experience what we can and enjoy or hate it when the appropriate time allows. Unfortunately for us, Heaven would be a lot like Eden. No sense of good and evil, just a bunch of content. Hell would more than likely still have our past in it, bad, good, but it all sucks nonetheless.

Hopefully I at least made some sense in clarifying that in life I don't expect God to do much, but the underlying dogma seems to imply it more often than not, which is where my preconceived notions of actions arrived. I know I'm sort of jumping from topic to topic, but I suppose there's a lot of ground to cover and most of it overlaps because of cause and effects overall. heh

[KarenM]

I can't believe all of this mess that's been started on this thread because of a book that touched my heart! Now, I don't claim to be all knowing nor do I want to be! It sounds like some of you are waiting in line for that privilege. I suggest if you have personal questions on why this happened or why that, take it up with the god you serve, but me and my house will serve the Lord!

[Dyrwen]

Hah. And if I don't serve any god then I'd say my questions directed at trismegistus are just fine. Asking questions to other living people is a healthy way to learn things about yourself that you don't know.

Lighten up.

[trismegistus]

The Old Testament God killed a lot of people and was fine with it because that's just how God is, what he says goes. Yet the image people portray of God nowadays seems too happy-go-lucky, in it for the love, but watch out for hell-type of guy with some conflicting messages .... If God were willing to edit his text to say: 'Hey, I'm not getting involved here. Free will and everything. I love you people, but you gotta live your lives the way you truly want to so that I might judge you once the afterlife reaches you. Good luck, follow these commandments.' The problem is: He didn't do that and those following the texts are following mistranslations, misinterpretations, blah de blah, there's a lot of problems with the religion's basis right now
Agreed. The problem is that the great majority choose to read the Bible as a literal historical text, and that inevitably produces contradictions when the events of real history change society. Out of that change in social paradigms comes these gross misunderstandings. People must realize that when they read Scripture, they are looking at a map, a representation. Farr too many, the large majority in fact, believe they are looking at the actual land, not a map.


I think there's a problem in that: I've heard a lot of folks claim that heaven will be many things, but the same ....
Here I'm not following you.


Hopefully I at least made some sense in clarifying that in life I don't expect God to do much
We agree here. I neither expect, nor would I want, a Deity playing a significanet role in my life, the point being it's MY life. I want my free will, and I'd think a loving parent would want me to HAVE my free will.

[trismegistus]

I can't believe all of this mess that's been started on this thread because of a book that touched my heart! Now, I don't claim to be all knowing nor do I want to be! It sounds like some of you are waiting in line for that privilege. I suggest if you have personal questions on why this happened or why that, take it up with the god you serve, but me and my house will serve the Lord!
What in Yahveh's name are you on about? Where do you see a "mess?" I see a dialogue between two posters concerning the existence and nature of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god.

As for "serving the lord," great. We ALL should be, the only question being, where does each of us find the Lord? Personally I think Wallace Stevens put it best when he said, "God is in me, or else is not at all."

[Basil]

Where do you see a "mess?" I see a dialogue between two posters concerning the existence and nature of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god.

Yes, a perfectly healthy, reasonable debate--much to the chagrin of those of us sitting forward in our chairs, eagerly anticipating the slanderous ad hominem attacks which, sadly, failed to materialize.

I will grudgingly admit that I have enjoyed following this thread, even with its lack of childish taunts and name-calling . . .

[Dyrwen]

Farr too many, the large majority in fact, believe they are looking at the actual land, not a map.
Indeed. I'd appreciate much of the population just taking it as literature with a lot of good social bearing underlying its messages and leave it at that with their religion, but it gets used to literally at times and so liberally at other times that it messes up the whole point of the book. Hopefully at some point people will stop picking and choosing what to follow in it through a strict interpretation and literal line and just realize it wasn't meant to be used that way.



I think there's a problem in that: I've heard a lot of folks claim that heaven will be many things, but the same ....
Here I'm not following you.
I thought of revising that line myself.

I think I was just saying that some folks believe heaven will be many different things, but others believe it will just be one thing that is the same for everyone. I don't suppose there was much point to the sentence itself, just confusing, since I made sense in the following paragraph, but started it off with this nonsense sentence, heh. Don't mind the conscious thought that throws off the message, happens from time to time.

On the other subjects: Appreciate the thought of folks actually enjoying this information debate, heh. Just a few ideas being cross checked and interpretations considered, as should be anything with a religious tone to it. Sorry to dissapoint in the namecalling realm though, never did care to use those when simple knowledge alone stands on higher ground.

But I'll work on that, buttpirate. :P :goof:

[Basil]

But I'll work on that, buttpirate. :P :goof:

Alas! The childish name-calling that I longed for has arrived, but contrary to my expectation . . . I find myself to be the target!

Damn this accursed monkey's paw! Damn it straight to hell!!

[subterranean]

Is it your suggestion that a Deity could only love his worshippers by letting them live forever? Life ends and claiming that deaths are a sign that God (or whatever) doesn't care seems like poor logic to me. How do you see the two as related?


But why would or should he? Is it your contention that a god's job is to stop people from dying?


Not at all of course.
I was just wondering with some questions like how did god choose them? Was it by random order, or was he throw a dice? And how did he decide how many deaths should be this time...how did he came up with the number..let say 30,000 (perhaps the number of deaths already reach more or less 30,000 people now, i haven't check out the news)? And, how did he decide which one should survive, which one should be in comma up till now, and which one who's life should end at that very moment, when the disaster happened.

Well I guess I was just being silly...
But perhaps, like some people said, he did determine all those things based on LOVE afterall...how should I know???!

[Dyrwen]

Just so you know, it is well over 100,000 deaths now.

[subterranean]

Thank you for the confirmation.

[Amra]

Interesting topic... Anyways, I don't have much time to write, but wanted to cite some things form the Qur'an that are quite self explanatory...

Say: He has power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, and make you to taste the violence of one another. (Al-An`am 6: 65)

And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much. (Ash-Shura 42: 30)

Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. (An-Nisa’ 4: 79)

And if the people of the towns had believed and had piety, certainly, We should have opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth, but they belied (the Messengers). So We took them (with punishment) for what they used to earn (polytheism and crimes). (Al-A`raf 7: 96)

There are various explanations why bad things such as natural catastrophes happen. One of them is that God is so angry with the sins people are committing that he chooses to punish them gravely. Another thing is that God is warning the people and reminding them of His power and of the need to follow His commendments. Also, scholars say that such disruptions in the balance of the natural laws show God's Greatness. He is the One who holds everything in place, He is the One who makes the Sun rise and makes the Earth rotate, He is the One who has made all these rules, but human beings do not acknowledge that. We are not aware what one little mistake or one little imperfection in the natural laws could do to the human life as we know it. So God shows us how easy it can all be destroyed if His rules are not followed. Such a tragedy is a great test to people, it is a warning, a reminder and punishment. Another interesting thing I read is that rescue workers are astnoished that they have not found any dead bodies of animals living on land. It seems that animals have somehow sensed what would occur and have fled to safety. Instinct? God's justice? Who knows...

[Dyrwen]

Say: He has power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, and make you to taste the violence of one another. (Al-An`am 6: 65)
Seems a bit violent, but at least he's honest about it.


And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. And He pardons much. (Ash-Shura 42: 30)
Judging by your statement below about how this is supposed to help test faith, I can accept that as being possible in that line of belief. Seems like he's just saying: Stuff might go wrong, but that's okay. If you handle it right, I'll be seeing you.


Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. (An-Nisa’ 4: 79)
A bit selfish, but I can respect the concept haphazardly. Personally the issue seems to become what is evil and what if I come to find evil a great thing? Then that evil becomes good and that means it is from Allah. Of course, I doubt Allah would go accepting moral relativism like that, so I'd imagine there's some sort of back up plan. heh


There are various explanations why bad things such as natural catastrophes happen. One of them is that God is so angry with the sins people are committing that he chooses to punish them gravely.
Understandable. At least in that case Allah is standing up for what he believes the world should be. Although the issue appears to pop up that; you said all good comes from Allah in one line above here, but the sins are of our own choice of evil and aren't to be affected by God. Then again, I suppose it may just mean that it isn't God's fault we're evil, but he can punish us if we are. Would that be more precise?


So God shows us how easy it can all be destroyed if His rules are not followed. Such a tragedy is a great test to people, it is a warning, a reminder and punishment.
If God's willing to be that vendictive to prove a point, at least he's consistent. But then again, it isn't like he's testing everyone all the time. Some folks get away with it, then I suppose Hell is their only test and punishment in time. Also, since he just tests or gives out punishment to remind people of his power and the reason to follow his laws, I'd suppose it doesn't always have to be a tsunami. It can be from a simple near-miss car crash, to a dog dying to teach you what not to do if you've done something wrong once in awhile.

Long as you're willing to accept Allah as that willing to bring down punishment that, to us, seems evil, I'm willing to understand that. Not like I believe in it, but I can comprehend it at least because he's consistent.


Another interesting thing I read is that rescue workers are astnoished that they have not found any dead bodies of animals living on land. It seems that animals have somehow sensed what would occur and have fled to safety. Instinct? God's justice? Who knows...
Yeah, they all ran away before it hit since animals can hear seismic waves underground from millions of miles away if they're great enough. Natural evolution really helps some creatures along, unfortunately God in this case didn't see fit to give us that sort of advanced warning system, or at least at this point in our evolution we've gotten rid of most of the counter measures we once used when we were more atuned to nature.

Interesting concepts you brought up. Always a unique experience hearing about Allah, since few bring up what his rules are nowadays. Not the nicest guy around, but at least he's honest about his intentions.

[mono]

Thank you for sharing your religious/spiritual quotes, Amra. Though I do not consider myself Muslim, I attempt to find the truth in all religions, leading a seemingly more reverential life than others.
Dyrwen, I hardly understand your reasoning in judging another's conception of an ultimate Being. You mentioned earlier that most perceptions of God/Allah/Yahweh/etc. involve an infinite figure; if you expect Christians, Muslims, the Jewish or other gnostics to believe in your interpretations, I fail to understand why one could believe a finite mind's perception of an infinite mind. We all have our perceptions of an infinite Being, and I agree with William James in saying that "faith is superior to logic;" a sole person's ideas given through step-by-step, linear logic, therefore, seems almost unnecessary in . . . correcting a more holistic manner of thinking as expressed in most religious-spirtual ideas.

[Dyrwen]

Dyrwen, I hardly understand your reasoning in judging another's conception of an ultimate Being. You mentioned earlier that most perceptions of God/Allah/Yahweh/etc. involve an infinite figure; if you expect Christians, Muslims, the Jewish or other gnostics to believe in your interpretations, I fail to understand why one could believe a finite mind's perception of an infinite mind.
I judge another's perception because I can and through that perception I give, one may come to understand another way or reason one does not believe the way I do. Just as I come to understand through their intepretations different types of gods I do not believe in and the reasons therof. I do not ever expect anyone to believe my interpetations, and that is not my peroggative. I seek only understanding of one's own beliefs, and posit questions or personal interpretations that I have of their beliefs and my own to better clarify one's or my own perception.

You've misunderstood my reasons for this discussion. Initially, someone gave grave perceptions light to be seen in, so I first responded in an inquiry into what exactly they meant. They never replied, but someone else was kind enough to pick apart my thoughts instead.


We all have our perceptions of an infinite Being, and I agree with William James in saying that "faith is superior to logic;" a sole person's ideas given through step-by-step, linear logic, therefore, seems almost unnecessary in . . . correcting a more holistic manner of thinking as expressed in most religious-spirtual ideas.
I have always believed in reason and never truly felt atuned to spirituality. Even as a child I did nothing but ask my parents various scientific questions that I was becoming aware of and through years of questioning the most valid answer they usually gave me was: Figure it out yourself. I told told that one should trust one's own perceptions of the world and believing in them, whether anyone else does or not, is perfectly acceptable and right.

Logic is what I do. I haven't the time for faith, for I haven't ever learned how to properly conceive of it usefully. Others have great uses for faith, wheras I do not, but as Arthur C. Clarke said; "A faith that cannot survive a collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." I'm just here to discuss the different truths we each share and if faith cannot handle it, then one might have bigger problems than just conflicting ideas. I tend to find it more of an interest, at least, in an almost observatory means of discussion, for if I do not share the common spiritual concepts brought up in these discussions, then I am able to observe and learn more than I would just thinking about them myself and not asking questions or sharing opinion.

[mono]

Dyrwen, I do not intend for you to agree with any one (or multiple) faith, but dissecting another's, I feel, seems unnecessary, and should never involve what you refer to as a "search for truth." Indeed, we all search for truth by multiple means, and as many great philosophers, such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Michel de Montaigne, have said: "there exist multiple means to one end." By denying someone his/her faith, and to have thought to proven it wrong refutes this idea. All ends with Immanuel Kant's theory that "the perception of reality and truth is subjective;" neither of us may think objectively, not through logic, nor faith. As a "self-reliant" manner may suggest, however, one finds his/her own best way, and editing another's ideas (especially another's religious text) seems unjustifiable and irreverent.
No offense, of course.

[Amra]

“Seems a bit violent, but at least he's honest about it.”

It is not meant to show violence, but rather His Power. It is meant to describe what God’s characteristics are. Violence would be if He chose to do things like this randomly just to show His power, but only saying it to let people know how great His power is, is merely stating the facts.

“Judging by your statement below about how this is supposed to help test faith, I can accept that as being possible in that line of belief. Seems like he's just saying: Stuff might go wrong, but that's okay. If you handle it right, I'll be seeing you. “

It is believed that God does not let people suffer without reason. When Adam and Eve were in Paradise, they did not suffer nor were they deprived of anything. Only when they disobeyed God were they punished and sent to Earth to live. So, it was their own choice that brought evil things on them, not God’s. That is the meaning of true free will, because God does not interfere with our free will, but He lets us see the consequences of it. However, in the second part He says, “And He pardons much”, which means that no matter how great your sins are, one should never think that they are too great for God to forgive. Because He does forgive, as long as we ask for it and sincerely come back to Him.


“A bit selfish, but I can respect the concept haphazardly. Personally the issue seems to become what is evil and what if I come to find evil a great thing? Then that evil becomes good and that means it is from Allah. Of course, I doubt Allah would go accepting moral relativism like that, so I'd imagine there's some sort of back up plan. Heh”

I have explained this above, but all this means is that evil things happen to us because we choose to sin. Evil never becomes good; it is merely understood within this greater concept. We may never choose to be a victim of a natural disaster, but we chose the sins that eventually triggered it. It is all cause and effect of our actions.

Quote:
“Understandable. At least in that case Allah is standing up for what he believes the world should be. Although the issue appears to pop up that; you said all good comes from Allah in one line above here, but the sins are of our own choice of evil and aren't to be affected by God. Then again, I suppose it may just mean that it isn't God's fault we're evil, but he can punish us if we are. Would that be more precise? “

True. He gave us free will, but because He knew that by giving us the free will, we would be quite helpless and prone to make the wrong choice amidst all the desires and temptation, He sent us Guidance through the prophets, so that we may know what is right and what is wrong. This way, He did not leave us stranded with our free will but clearly showed us which way to go. He did His part, so that no one will have any justification on Judgment Day to blame Him for the choices one made.

“If God's willing to be that vendictive to prove a point, at least he's consistent. But then again, it isn't like he's testing everyone all the time. Some folks get away with it, then I suppose Hell is their only test and punishment in time. Also, since he just tests or gives out punishment to remind people of his power and the reason to follow his laws, I'd suppose it doesn't always have to be a tsunami. It can be from a simple near-miss car crash, to a dog dying to teach you what not to do if you've done something wrong once in awhile. “

The evil comes because of our sins. When He chooses to punish us on such a great scale, it is because the sins are so great that they demand such punishment. He is not being vindictive to prove the point, but by punishing us on such a great scale, we can at the same time see His power and realize what it really means when He says that He is the Ruler of the Heavens and the Earth. It is merely a subsequent effect not the reason the natural disaster happened. The main reason bad things happen is because they are triggered by the sins people commit. Sometimes it can be a simple car crash, other times it is a tsunami. However, it is merely Justice no matter how it happens. Also, it is believed that the punishment in this life is much smaller than the punishment in the afterlife. Maybe God saw that the sins of those people were so great and that they would not change that He chose to punish them and end their lives now, rather than let them live and sin even more. Who knows?

Quote:
“Yeah, they all ran away before it hit since animals can hear seismic waves underground from millions of miles away if they're great enough. Natural evolution really helps some creatures along, unfortunately God in this case didn't see fit to give us that sort of advanced warning system, or at least at this point in our evolution we've gotten rid of most of the counter measures we once used when we were more atuned to nature. “

Muslims believe that all beings(except humans) on Earth, and everything that God has created is worshiping Him in the way that they do exactly what He intended them to do. So when the Sun rises in the morning, it is worshiping the God because it obeys Him by serving the purpose for what it was created for. Animals do not have free will, but God gave them instinct, so that they may protect themselves and survive on this Earth. Only human beings have the free will, and therefore, are the only ones that sin.

[trismegistus]

Not at all of course.
I was just wondering with some questions like how did god choose them? ....
But perhaps, like some people said, he did determine all those things based on LOVE afterall...how should I know???!
Well this is my point. What would make you (read "anyone") believe God CHOSE to kill anyone? Why must people dying be a function of God's will? Why can't they simply die?

And for Basil's enternatinment I feel compelled to add: "You atheistic bast***!!!!!"

[subterranean]

And for Basil's enternatinment I feel compelled to add: "You atheistic bast***!!!!!"


And who you callin bastard?

[Dyrwen]

By denying someone his/her faith, and to have thought to proven it wrong refutes this idea.
Oh, no, I accept another's beliefs as different and entirely possible to be right. I subjectively believe my non/beliefs are correct by personal experience. I never claimed them to be absolutely correct or knowledgeably factual. I believe one thing differently and find it right, but default of course I have to call someone else's wrong, but I'm not saying my beliefs might not be wrong as well. I'm a firm believer that anything is possible and I might be wrong, just as you might be wrong. Which is why I find the exchange of ideas that are contrary to another a valuable reason for discussion, since I don't think I'm absolutely right, but I think I've got a good idea. I like to hear other people's ideas to see whether or not their own are more possible than mine, to figure out whether or not it is as reasonable to believe in it.

Just my personal following, of course.


As a "self-reliant" manner may suggest, however, one finds his/her own best way, and editing another's ideas (especially another's religious text) seems unjustifiable and irreverent.
No offense, of course.
True, but what else is there to do on the internet, but discuss ideas between another that conflict to gain some understanding of one's position better? heh, no offense taken, just trying to figure out exactly why I supposedly shouldn't partake of a discussion merely because I don't believe in most of what is being said. Everything's a subjective concept to me and truth is an interesting concept to dissect, for one might find someone else's truth more reasonable and therefore kill off my original belief of what is true. Just something to keep me busy when the opportunity arises.

General thought: Well, was going to make one big reply here to reply to Amra, but a double post might be more justified considering what is being covered isn't related at all.

[Dyrwen]

It is not meant to show violence, but rather His Power. It is meant to describe what God’s characteristics are. Violence would be if He chose to do things like this randomly just to show His power, but only saying it to let people know how great His power is, is merely stating the facts.
The fact of the matter is: Violence is defined as an act of aggression. Even if it may just be a showing of power and punishment that is in fact part of God's desire to keep people in line, it is still a violent act against human beings. Whether they deserve it or not isn't the point, as that would be for God to decide, but that what he does is still violent and against people's will. I doubt people were asking to be punished, so God's actions against their wishes is a violent and aggressive act, however justified it may be.


It is believed that God does not let people suffer without reason. When Adam and Eve were in Paradise, they did not suffer nor were they deprived of anything. Only when they disobeyed God were they punished and sent to Earth to live. So, it was their own choice that brought evil things on them, not God’s. That is the meaning of true free will, because God does not interfere with our free will, but He lets us see the consequences of it. However, in the second part He says, “And He pardons much”, which means that no matter how great your sins are, one should never think that they are too great for God to forgive. Because He does forgive, as long as we ask for it and sincerely come back to Him.
Understandable.

Although in an essence of thinking here, if we do what our free will dictates we're obviously willing to do, yet it goes against God's will, then we're to be punished for it. So it is still a measure of control over one's choice in life to do what one wishes by having God's Power dictates judgement if the opportunity arises.

I get the point that it is human beings that commit evil deeds and because of it they are punished by God because of their choice to do so, but by his judgement over their actions and showing them the consequences of their actions, he is potentially governing which will to live by, rather than their own. Of course, one can acknowledge the consequences and still disobey them continuously and not obstruct one's free will, even though God will just continue to punish you to remind you of his Power and the stupidity one is doing by dissenting against God's Power.

I see what you're saying though, seems a bit odd to enforce one's power onto people just because they're disobeying you, but if one wants people to realize there are consequences to one's actions that aren't apparent, God ought to be the figure to lay down some force and show people. Personally I'd say the consequences of our evil deeds in life are quite apparent and aren't in need of God's command for us to realize them, but one whom gets their moral guidelines from God would obviously have a much different opinion on the matter.


I have explained this above, but all this means is that evil things happen to us because we choose to sin. Evil never becomes good; it is merely understood within this greater concept. We may never choose to be a victim of a natural disaster, but we chose the sins that eventually triggered it. It is all cause and effect of our actions.
Ok, so you're an absolute morality type. It all comes from God and such, makes sense. We won't manage to resolve much there, since I'm one to believe that our beliefs about good and evil are relative to one's perception of the concepts. To you, killing someone is wrong. To Ted Bundy, it's completely fine. Subjectivity of perception. However evil it may seem overall to the general public, one can still personally hold a moral guide different and true to them.

But your natural disaster point raised a question to me: How did 150,000 people sin so much that God thought it best to wipe them all out? I mean, they're in a third world nation. It isn't like they're hurting that many people over there, if anything they were probably more peaceful and caring for nature itself than any group as large in some other more developed nation in the world. So they all sinned at some point in their lives and eventually God just thought it was time to cash in on all of their mistakes to remind people of the consequences of long term sinning? Seems a little like he wipes out a group of people just to warn the other groups that their lives are in his hands, which all in all, seems pretty evil. However much those people sinned and wronged God's will, it seems a bit excessive and irrational to believe that all those people were somehow justifiably killed because they did something wrong. If that were the case it seems like a lot more people would be dead a lot more often to keep the message clear. Not just some random natural disaster once every couple decades to remind folks.

I'm not presumming that I can possibly understand why God does the things he supposedly does, but from someone who thinks about the world in terms of reasonable actions, the belief that God judges people in this manner is just one of many reasons I can't go accepting that God as a good one to have exist. Even if he did exist, I certainly would put my faith in him just out principle alone. He seems a little vendictive, even if we are sinning against him a little too much at times. Why attack us in life when he can just tell us we were wrong when we get to judgement? That's a big enough consequence for living: in death. Might as well teach people then, but I guess one wants to change their ways mid-life sometimes as well.



True. He gave us free will, but because He knew that by giving us the free will, we would be quite helpless and prone to make the wrong choice amidst all the desires and temptation, He sent us Guidance through the prophets, so that we may know what is right and what is wrong. This way, He did not leave us stranded with our free will but clearly showed us which way to go. He did His part, so that no one will have any justification on Judgment Day to blame Him for the choices one made.
Luckily you picked a god that has his scripture from the prophets untranslated and directly from the word of God then. I can't say the same for Christianity, since they've retranslated and reinterpretted so much over the years. Unless I misunderstand the scripture, the Qu'ran is to be followed as the direct word of God as direction to how one should live? Long as that's the case, I can see how just following it is a pretty good way to avoid going into temptation, etc, and losing God along the way. So the point that humans are willfully sinning because they didn't follow his word stands up to the test in this case, seeing as there's a book that's the word of God and people know it is there.

Suppose the only question is, for those that don't know about the Qu'ran out there, yet live decent lives with a few sins here and there but are unware of God's existence, do they still get to Heaven? I mean, they might have sinned, but they didn't know of the Qu'ran and how to fix their lives and live rightfully in the eyes of God, so it is somewhat difficult to blame them for their choices as being agains the word of God.



The evil comes because of our sins. When He chooses to punish us on such a great scale, it is because the sins are so great that they demand such punishment. He is not being vindictive to prove the point, but by punishing us on such a great scale, we can at the same time see His power and realize what it really means when He says that He is the Ruler of the Heavens and the Earth. It is merely a subsequent effect not the reason the natural disaster happened. The main reason bad things happen is because they are triggered by the sins people commit. Sometimes it can be a simple car crash, other times it is a tsunami. However, it is merely Justice no matter how it happens. Also, it is believed that the punishment in this life is much smaller than the punishment in the afterlife. Maybe God saw that the sins of those people were so great and that they would not change that He chose to punish them and end their lives now, rather than let them live and sin even more. Who knows?
Guess that sort of covers my earlier tsunami question in a way, but still doesn't sound all that great. Suppose I just have a hard time believing people can sin on that kind of scale and not be capable of redeeming themselves at a later date. I mean, sheesh, there were a lot of folks there, I'm sure a couple of hundred might've repented at some point, heh. Guess we can't know though.


Muslims believe that all beings(except humans) on Earth, and everything that God has created is worshiping Him in the way that they do exactly what He intended them to do. So when the Sun rises in the morning, it is worshiping the God because it obeys Him by serving the purpose for what it was created for. Animals do not have free will, but God gave them instinct, so that they may protect themselves and survive on this Earth. Only human beings have the free will, and therefore, are the only ones that sin.
Well, that clears that up, I suppose. Though I suppose you do at least conceed that instinctually, human beings still act as animals in that they naturally breathe without conscious effort, seek to reproduce because that's how they are to survive, and remain social because they are naturally social beings? Or have I misunderstood you and Humans as well as animals do have instinct, but it is just that human beings sin?

In a sense, God is all that is natural though, so anything is potentially just God's attempt to keep control and a useful existence as time passes, except human being's free will.

[trismegistus]

I have always believed in reason and never truly felt atuned to spirituality. Even as a child I did nothing but ask my parents various scientific questions that I was becoming aware of and through years of questioning the most valid answer they usually gave me was: Figure it out yourself. I told told that one should trust one's own perceptions of the world and believing in them, whether anyone else does or not, is perfectly acceptable and right.

Logic is what I do. I haven't the time for faith
Although we agree on a number of things, this is exactly where we part company. You seem to see logic and faith as mutually contradictory; I do not. Logic can take us so far, but as mono points out, God (or at least the standard Western conception of him) is transcendent of human understanding because he is transcendent of human experience. He is beyond the bounds of the time/space continuum, while we can ONLY think in those terms because we are bound to that reality.

We might usefully think of God as the 4th dimension. We might conceptualize him through our imagination (which is little more than vision born of faith), but we cannot experience the 4th dimension. We might logically posit a 4th dimension, just as we might logically posit a Deity, but PROVING the existence of either is beyond the realm of logic.

[trismegistus]

Natural evolution really helps some creatures along, unfortunately God in this case didn't see fit to give us that sort of advanced warning system, or at least at this point in our evolution we've gotten rid of most of the counter measures we once used when we were more atuned to nature.

"we've gotten rid of"???? What are you, a Lemarkian? ;)

[trismegistus]

And who you callin bastard?
You see any OTHER atheistic bastards around here? (Alright, Dyrwen too.)

Mwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!

[Dyrwen]

We might logically posit a 4th dimension, just as we might logically posit a Deity, but PROVING the existence of either is beyond the realm of logic.
I never said I used logic to prove anything. It's just a reasonability thing. I can't prove there is a god, so I don't posit the god's existence in the first place. All I'm really saying is: I don't need a god. Others do, faith works, they find a way to work with it. I have absolutely no need for a god of anykind, so I don't believe in them, even without evidence of their existences or the possibility present that they may very well exist out in a realm I do not know.

And technically speaking, time is the imaginary 4th dimension that we cannot truly experience with our own physical selves. It is just a realm that encloses all other 3 dimensions creating space-time, in a sense. But if you really want to get silly, there are actually 11 dimensions according to string theory, of which most are subatomic and interlaced, allowing quantum mechanics to work properly. ;)

[atiguhya padma]

It strikes me that if there is a God, then there is little difference between God creating or allowing an earthquake that caused this tsunami and a terrorist detonating a device that would cause the tsunami. If there is a God, then both seem to me acts of terror. In fact, if there is a God, then maybe this along with floodings of the Yangste River, plague epidemics in India in the early years of the 20th cent etc are probably candidates for the greatest acts of terrorism in history.

[subterranean]

It strikes me that if there is a God, then there is little difference between God creating or allowing an earthquake that caused this tsunami and a terrorist detonating a device that would cause the tsunami. If there is a God, then both seem to me acts of terror. In fact, if there is a God, then maybe this along with floodings of the Yangste River, plague epidemics in India in the early years of the 20th cent etc are probably candidates for the greatest acts of terrorism in history.


And the best answer that can be given is " These are all His plans, He knows what's best for mankind, and all we need to do is surrender and trust that no matter what happened to us, He loves us"

[trismegistus]

And technically speaking, time is the imaginary 4th dimension that we cannot truly experience with our own physical selves. It is just a realm that encloses all other 3 dimensions creating space-time, in a sense.
I must be behind the times in my physics. I recall Carl Sagan showing a "shadow" model of a spatial 4th dimension.

[trismegistus]

It strikes me that if there is a God, then there is little difference between God creating or allowing an earthquake that caused this tsunami and a terrorist detonating a device that would cause the tsunami. If there is a God, then both seem to me acts of terror.
Well you've got to be consistent. "Acts of terror" are committed with intent. Terrorists act with purpose: to create fear in order to achieve some larger end. In that case, God's allowing natural disasters cannot be an "act of terror" for the simple reason that it is not an act at all. He is not DOING anything, much less doing something to achieve a larger end. He is passive and so cannot be compared to a terrorist because doing nothing is not an "act of terror." To make that comparison is bad logic and/or bad rhetoric.

(Another way to look at this is to say that if what you posit was valid, we might easily call George Bush a terrorist for not acting on the information he had regarding 9/11.


Hmmmm ... maybe I agree with you after all ... ;) )

Now if a Deity was creating natural disasters, we might be able to say She's committing "acts of terror." Depends entirely on Her motive.

[Dyrwen]

I must be behind the times in my physics. I recall Carl Sagan showing a "shadow" model of a spatial 4th dimension.
Well, yeah. You can draw it, but as far as human perception goes we can only comprehend the three dimensions of space. Though I may be misunderstanding the use of spatial completely that you gave.

[atiguhya padma]

Trismegistus,

Apparently, God created the world, so even if it is the case that he allows a tsunami to happen, what he is doing is allowing his planning or design to be fulfilled. So I would argue that it was planned. Planning a terrorist act is an act of terrorism is it not?

[trismegistus]

Apparently, God created the world, so even if it is the case that he allows a tsunami to happen, what he is doing is allowing his planning or design to be fulfilled. So I would argue that it was planned. Planning a terrorist act is an act of terrorism is it not?
Well two things:
1. You're assuming the Deity created the world rather than something far more oblique (such as creating a universe in which certain laws of physics hold sway that allowed this particular planet with these particular species to come about). This is purely my own conception, but I don't see God sitting down with hammer and tongs and forging out the earth. I see Her relationship as far more tenuous.

But when we talk about what God "allows," this ultimately comes down to the same notion I posted on another thread: is it God's job to make everyone live forever?

2. I don't believe planning a terrorist act is a terrorist act, no. I could formulate a very specific (and extremely effective) plan for taking out the building in which I work, but I'd have zero intention of ever carrying it through. Have I committed an act of terrorism? For starters, whom have I terrorized by merely planning something? Secondly, what aim do I hope to achieve by this plan? It must not be forgotten that an act of violence is not necessarily an act of terror. I'll say again, the terrorist does what he does not merely for the destruction but to serve an agenda.

[atiguhya padma]

The problem is Trismegistus, if God designed the Universe, he built into that design natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes. If those subsequently destroy lives, then either that was intentional on God's part or he was ignorant of the outcomes of his design.

All this 'God allowed' stuff is really clutching at straws. You can't explain the incompetence in the design, so you resort to a cop out.

It isn't God's job to make everyone live forever, no. Is it God's job to care for those He loves?

An interesting conception. I presume you have a slightly alternative take on Jesus then and his role in this 'allowed to evolve' world of ours.

[baddad]

IMHO.........

Biology, physics and chemistry created everything in existence. Philosophy is a creation of man. Easy to see where God stands.

As for the lonely coincidence of some of these scientific principles (the creation of life) I think continued exploration of the universe will someday prove these secular theories quite valid. Life, probably not our notion of it (including all aliens having swollen craniums) will probably be found to exist outside of earth. Sure, it may only be a bacteria that is discovered, but when this happens, many theologically ironclad dictates will go right out the window.......

Religion, and the existence or non-existence of 'GOD', is pure philosophy, a warm cuddly blanket to wrap our superstitions in, an insulate against that which we do not understand, a philosophy that guards our smallness from a universe so vast that few human minds can even grasp the intricacies of the myriad interactions involved. Man should waste less time in wondering about a 'God' and more time wondering how to improve the lives of those we KNOW exist....i.e. our fellow man.

God isn't dead. He is still a philosophical theory.

P.s. Apologies in advance if anyone has been offended

[trismegistus]

if God designed the Universe, he built into that design natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes. If those subsequently destroy lives, then either that was intentional on God's part or he was ignorant of the outcomes of his design.
Completely untrue. Henry Ford designed the automobile (or at least we'll credit him for doing it for the sake of this argument). Ford did not do so with the intent of destroying lives, nor could have been ignorant of the fact that a 600 lb car running over a person would kill or maim that person.

The automobile, though destructive, was designed and built to serve another purpose. Destructiveness was not built with intent nor was its builder unaware that the thing he created could be very destructive indeed. I'd argue the same for things like Tesla's work.


All this 'God allowed' stuff is really clutching at straws. You can't explain the incompetence in the design, so you resort to a cop out.
I hope it's clear to you now that your original supposition is wrong. There need be neither malice nor ignorance/incompetence in the building of a system which causes harm.


It isn't God's job to make everyone live forever, no. Is it God's job to care for those He loves?
Indeed it is. The difference is that you seem to think "caring for" includes keeping everyone alive forever. You say that you don't think God is responsible for keeping everyone alive, yet when people die, you claim She is uncaring.

You can't have it both ways, ap.


An interesting conception. I presume you have a slightly alternative take on Jesus then and his role in this 'allowed to evolve' world of ours.
I don't know. What do you mean by "slightly alternative?" An alternative to what?


Man should waste less time in wondering about a 'God' and more time wondering how to improve the lives of those we KNOW exist....i.e. our fellow man.
Exactly. As a transcendent being, God will do what She will do, and whatever It does will be far beyond our ken. We are bound to this continuum while the Deity is not - presumably. Worry about your own back yard.

[subterranean]

Completely untrue. Henry Ford designed the automobile (or at least we'll credit him for doing it for the sake of this argument). Ford did not do so with the intent of destroying lives, nor could have been ignorant of the fact that a 600 lb car running over a person would kill or maim that person.

The automobile, though destructive, was designed and built to serve another purpose. Destructiveness was not built with intent nor was its builder unaware that the thing he created could be very destructive indeed. I'd argue the same for things like Tesla's work.


But Ford is not an omnipotence, omnipresent, and all good, living being.

[atiguhya padma]

Trismegistus,

Was god ignorant of the outcome of suffering due to his design? SubT, thank you for pointing out to Trismegistus what was so absurdly ridiculous about his analogy. Never trust analogies tailored to promote an author's conclusions.


I wonder what you think about love? God does a great job doens't he? He really shows his love in this world.

[atiguhya padma]

Trismegistus,

The Indonesian earthquake and subsequent tsunami, destroyed in an indiscriminate fashion, thousands of children. In fact, it was the children that seemed to suffer most, as they found it far more difficult to escape than the stronger adults. Of course, god has no responsibility for them does he Trismegistus? Not only do the infants not live forever, they don't even make adulthood. But of course, let's not blame god for that. Maybe we can find a way to blame man instead. I mean we could focus on the early warning system and claim that had it been in place the children may have been spared. However, man cannot see the consequences of such things with any degree of certainty. God, on the other hand (should he exist) can.

Maybe you could point out to us some of the examples of god's love to the infants of Sumatra in this tsunami disaster Trismegistus? Or maybe you could give us an argument for why he did not spare these children.

[subterranean]

Well AP, not all kids died. I mean some loose their parents, some are still in comma, some are losing their feet or hands, and some, inspite of the shocking traumatic feel of terror, are still in perfect conditions :rolleyes:. Maybe they pray whole lot more than others, and that's why their lives were "spared", don't you think so AP?