DEvolution in America

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GdsMisfits,

That assumes God is infallable and activily preventing people from making mistakes. However, if God is infallable but lets us make our own screw ups (Free will and all) then we could be building mistakes and mis-translations into the Bible.

I do not claim to speak for God. That's why I dislike aggressive evagelicals. I merely say that I hope that through my faith I may be saved.

[HT Reddy]

And please, despite what HT Reddy and others claim, not all of us who believe in God and the divinity of Christ think that suffering is due to humanity's fall as a result of humans equating themselves with God.

Do you really think we suffer extraordinarily? Be honest, do humans really suffer any worse than other animals "suffer" at the teeth, claws and talons of other creatures (and at the hand of humanity)? It is not Mankinds "fall" that has lead us to suffering. It is our recognition that we actually possess something more of the divine than other animals that allows us to recognise suffering and place a moral value on suffering, happiness, cruelty. No it is not our fall that lead us to suffer, it is our unique (on this planet) spiritual awakening and moral elevation that causes us to agonise over pain and death. Every morally abhorrent behaviour has an exact parallel among animals of other species: be it genocide, paedophilia, rape, murder, fratricide, infanticide. Do we explode in righteous moral outrage when we see it on TV being perpetrated by other animals? No, because we say that it is all part of the natural order, survival of the fittest, the circle of life, and the animals don't "know" better.

We say these things are bad in humanity because we should know better, we do know better (well most of us do at least). But what do we know? Physically we are just animals. Why should we question or abhor suffering at a social level any more than any other species? Suffering just is what it is. Would it be a bad thing if humanity never progressed much beyond being a slightly more skilled chimpanzee and all the suffering that was endured at that stage of our evolution? But it is only our suffering that provided us with the opportunity to socially and technologically progress well beyond being nothing more than a less hairy (for some of us) and somewhat more upright version of our closest cousins.

The ONLY role God can possibly have in humanity's constant struggle with suffering is to show us ways in which we can mitigate, and in some cases eliminate, the kinds of suffering that is part of the savagery of the "natural world" which we find particularly detestable. I've gotta say, that in a mere few thousand years, despite our often and spectacular failings, God has done a pretty good job so far. Without God's guiding hand we would still be cavemen, beating our women over the head with clubs and dragging them off to our cave.

We are not the origin our suffering because of the misdeeds of some ancestors thousands of years ago. Ultimately because God decided that evolution was good and creationism was bad (as a basic design for the universe) He created a system in which suffering is an integral part of survival and progress. And it is our job, as the only creatures native to this planet who can comprehend higher principles, to rise out of the suffering of the amoral, savage natural world and create a civilisation based on the Divine virtues that characterise our spiritual nature.

I can understand hate for a God who punishes mankind for exhibiting those characteristics God Himself invested in us. Fortunately I don't believe in that God, and nether should you. God is soooo much better than that. God is like a loving parent who cries an ocean of tears every time we fall over and skin our knee (mostly because we didn't do what He said we should do), but who ultimately knows that an overprotective hand is not the best way for us to learn and grow.

Well, yeh. I guess here we disagree. I would take this discussion further, but not in this thread. By God's grace, maybe some day we'll find out what is more correct, though it probably won't seem to matter so much then.

I think that explains your opinion is perfectly. I mean, history is literal right? I think that means that jesus took the story of adam and eve, noah, and all that literally. do you though? sorry if i misunderstood, i'm not trying to misrepresent your meaning.

Jesus would have known how literal Genesis was. (for me personally I believe that Noah Abraham etc. were real people, and their stories are instructive, though I don't believe in a worldwide flood) But that knowledge wouldn't have necessarily affected how he talked about it. Ie, Jesus wasn't interested in clarifying whether the flood was a local event or a global one, what is important is God's kingdom and how that is revealed by the scriptures.

or for some, it is the divinely-inspired "Word of God," but not necessarily the divinely-inspired "words of God."

I take this view. And thanks Matrim btw, I always love your posts.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Matrim,

I think you missed that the point of the discussion on the bible's accuracy was that Ser Scott claimed that part of the reason some bits of the bible that were in no way meant to be taken literally seem to be written as such could be that pieces were lost in translation, transcription, or just lost in time, and i was trying to say that god could have prevented such a huge shift in meaning, especially when they hold back the most devout so much.

Also, all comparisons to the constitution, scientific theory, or whatever man made ideas and their revision are moot if god is infallable.

I'm not sure how much weight to place in conditionals when talking about hypothetical superbeings. The capacity to do something does not necessarily require a compulsion to do something.

[MinDonner]

I just wanted to point out that the bible does indeed solve your questions. The prophet Daniel tells us that God is all things good and evil.

Apart from that hey believe what you want, each to their own. For myself I can actually understand how a loving God/Creator/Goddess would allow the hardships in the world. Truly would you like to live without any struggle being made?

Granted I would be happier with more money for less work but seriously is that really your idea of a good life?

While I'm happy that you feel your life is improved by suffering, I find it slightly horrifying that people can hold this attitude from a position of privilege. Do you think the lives of brutalised war orphans in Darfur are improved by suffering? How about those kids with the worms growing in their eyes? At least the Anti-Targ's position makes some kind of sense (it's the nearest I've seen to a reasonable justification for loving-God-causes-suffering, though still leaves a nasty taste).

[Galactus]

Of course, there is an argument to be made that God occasionally comes back and fixes his message once it gets too out of hand... I seem to recall a certain caravan-master arguing that point.

[TerraPrime]

Re: HT Reddy

What can I say? I personally, am very willing to believe Catholics are Christian, rather less willing to believe Mormons are Christian and not at all willing to believe Muslims are Christian. And yes that's my interpretation. But I would very strongly argue that only God knows who are His, and yes I would say to Christians just as much to non-Christians that we should not be doing God's job for him, by trying to judge who is saved or not. I think it's slightly unfair you accuse me of not being credible because I should say this to my fellow believers first - I would, but that's not the context it came up in in this thread, that's all.

I don't think that it's unfair of me to ask you to examine the behavior of yourself and other Christians when you start to question the same behavior in others. Obviously, you feel comfortable saying that you think some self-proclaimed Christians are not truly Christians. Why not give others the same latitude on the same issue to others?

Re: The Anti-Targ

The ONLY role God can possibly have in humanity's constant struggle with suffering is to show us ways in which we can mitigate, and in some cases eliminate, the kinds of suffering that is part of the savagery of the "natural world" which we find particularly detestable. I've gotta say, that in a mere few thousand years, despite our often and spectacular failings, God has done a pretty good job so far. Without God's guiding hand we would still be cavemen, beating our women over the head with clubs and dragging them off to our cave.

Given that moral codes and philosophical systems had evolved in the absence of Judeo-Christian influences, e.g. the Greeks, the Chinese, the Indiians, etc., what you just said is defensible only if either (1) you presume a universalist position and argue that God worked in all different cultures but appeared in different forms, i.e. God is the same as Buddha and the same as most of the other deities people believe in, or (2) you attribute the human's ability to reason to be God's work.

We are not the origin our suffering because of the misdeeds of some ancestors thousands of years ago. Ultimately because God decided that evolution was good and creationism was bad (as a basic design for the universe) He created a system in which suffering is an integral part of survival and progress. And it is our job, as the only creatures native to this planet who can comprehend higher principles, to rise out of the suffering of the amoral, savage natural world and create a civilisation based on the Divine virtues that characterise our spiritual nature.

That's about as reasonable an explanation as I can come up with, too. That the existence of evil is needed because it's the other end of the spectrum of being good. But that's not really uniquely Christian mythos, because Zhuang-zi, for one, and possibly others, have argued this, as well. I guess the Christian part of it comes from your attribution to God as the prime designer of this system.

That said, I do think that your thesis is a bit in conflict when on one hand you argue that humans don't suffer any more than animals do because we are, after all, animals, and then on the other hand you argue that we are separate from the animals by virtue of our intellect. So if we have the intellect to recognize and rationalize our suffering, then we are not like animals (who presumably can't), and I'd argue that our awareness of suffering offer us new ways to cause sufferings that animals who are not aware are incapable of, e.g. humans are capable of psychologically hurting others deliberately, and we generally presume that animals cannot because they lack a recognizable psyche. So objectively, there is more suffering for humans because we have venues of causing suffering that other animals don't have.

I can understand hate for a God who punishes mankind for exhibiting those characteristics God Himself invested in us. Fortunately I don't believe in that God, and nether should you. God is soooo much better than that. God is like a loving parent who cries an ocean of tears every time we fall over and skin our knee (mostly because we didn't do what He said we should do), but who ultimately knows that an overprotective hand is not the best way for us to learn and grow.

I know you meant well, but God-as-parent is a very annoying simile to me. Others may find it more attractive.

[Shryke]

I know you meant well, but God-as-parent is a very annoying simile to me.

Why?

[TerraPrime]

Why?

Because it presumes the conclusion, that God is superior to humans.

It also glosses over the fact that our parents are flawed people, too, as much as most of us love our parents and are genuinely grateful to all that our parents have done for us. In the context of the simile for God, that part is usually not mentioned.

And last, but not least, I am an atheist, and I don't like the Christian God.

[Shryke]

Because it presumes the conclusion, that God is superior to humans.

But that's not the conclusion, that's the presumption. Hence, why it presumes it.

It also glosses over the fact that our parents are flawed people, too, as much as most of us love our parents and are genuinely grateful to all that our parents have done for us. In the context of the simile for God, that part is usually not mentioned.

Well yeah. That's why it's a simile. It's an attempt to explain the idea through a more well known phenomena.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Because it presumes the conclusion, that God is superior to humans.

It also glosses over the fact that our parents are flawed people, too, as much as most of us love our parents and are genuinely grateful to all that our parents have done for us. In the context of the simile for God, that part is usually not mentioned.

And last, but not least, I am an atheist, and I don't like the Christian God.

This is a moot point. It does not gloss over anything really. It is a presumed conclusion of superiority, but Christians hold God to be a perfect parent. They are just extremely unruly children who deserve what they get, because God is deemed righteous. God's superiority not only comes from the signs and wonders God performed, but more importantly from the very act of creation.

[Ocean of Notions]

This is a moot point. It does not gloss over anything really. It is a presumed conclusion of superiority, but Christians hold God to be a perfect parent. They are just extremely unruly children who deserve what they get, because God is deemed righteous. God's superiority not only comes from the signs and wonders God performed, but more importantly from the very act of creation.

That's another thing that bothers me. Just because one can create does not mean one is a good caregiver.

[Shryke]

That's another thing that bothers me. Just because one can create does not mean one is a good caregiver.

The answer to this would be, essentially, "Don't project humanity's faults on God".

[Ocean of Notions]

The answer to this would be, essentially, "Don't project humanity's faults on God".

Who says he doesn't have these faults? Weren't we made in his image?

[tzanth]

Who says he doesn't have these faults? Weren't we made in his image?

Whats with this "he" bull shit? :leaving:

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

That's another thing that bothers me. Just because one can create does not mean one is a good caregiver.

Being a creator does not imply being a caregiver, but all the other acts of God such as the deliverance out of Egypt and the giving of the Laws of Moses were considered the signs of a good caregiver. But being a good caregiver does not mean the parent who never lets their kids even fall so they can't skin their knees.

Who says he doesn't have these faults? Weren't we made in his image?

We were made in God's image, but the primeval chaos corrupted the world and it became violent. Furthermore, being made in the image of God does not mean that we were made with God's wisdom and goodness. But the meaning of "image of God" is a matter that is frequently contested in the biblical field. Some believe that "image of God" actually refers to the commandment to humans to rule and have dominion over the earth, though the Hebrew words translated as "rule" and "have dominion" carry more violent overtones, an almost trampling under foot. But as the "image and likeness of God" idiom is present in the priestly source (which includes Gen 1:1-2:4a), being in the "image and likeness of God" deals with violently trampling out the chaos of the world and establishing order. One of the major themes of Gen 1:1-2:4a is chaos made order. This does not exactly answer your questions, though it does appear that you were most likely begging the question anyway, but I got carried away.

[Galactus]

This is a moot point. It does not gloss over anything really. It is a presumed conclusion of superiority, but Christians hold God to be a perfect parent. They are just extremely unruly children who deserve what they get, because God is deemed righteous. God's superiority not only comes from the signs and wonders God performed, but more importantly from the very act of creation.

Of course, that doesen't really fly either: Human parents can be flawed, but if God is the *perfect* parent and with all the other traits attributed to God... He can't be.

Because the way being God works, *everything* that happens must be deliberate. Even if we can assume he gives us free will, he's *still* deliberately infecting us with plague or letting us get eaten by tigers or buried by avalanches.

God doesen't have the excuses a mortal parent does: He can't say "I didn't know" or "I was too busy" or even make the excuse that he has a personality not suited to be a parent. (since he is, per definition, perfect)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Of course, that doesen't really fly either: Human parents can be flawed, but if God is the *perfect* parent and with all the other traits attributed to God... He can't be.

Because the way being God works, *everything* that happens must be deliberate. Even if we can assume he gives us free will, he's *still* deliberately infecting us with plague or letting us get eaten by tigers or buried by avalanches.

God doesen't have the excuses a mortal parent does: He can't say "I didn't know" or "I was too busy" or even make the excuse that he has a personality not suited to be a parent. (since he is, per definition, perfect)

True, but calling God evil for the "natural evils" of the world is just as stupid as cursing nature for the "natural evils" in a world without God. Also keep in mind, that many of the "perfect" attributes that are attributed to God did not exist in the Semitic understanding of deity, but only came later when the Semitic understanding of deity had to be reconciled with the Hellenistic philosophy of the gentiles.

[Galactus]

True, but calling God evil for the "natural evils" of the world is just as stupid as cursing nature for the "natural evils" in a world without God.

Except that God, at least in the classical conception, has intention and awareness, which nature does not. Mind, there are conceptions of God that lack this.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Except that God, at least in the classical conception, has intention and awareness, which nature does not. Mind, there are conceptions of God that lack this.

This may be, but the idea that humanity is somehow so special that God must cater to us and our notions of being a caregiver is also a rather somewhat silly. ETA: I did add a little bit above too, which covered the "at least in the classical conception."

[Errant Bard]

This may be, but the idea that humanity is somehow so special that God must cater to us and our notions of being a caregiver is also a rather somewhat silly.

What's your take on Noah's story, Adam and Ever, and Jesus Christ, with that approach?