everloving god?

[jb_farley]

i was at mass on easter sunday, the first time in a long time. I went because my whole family was going. My mind wandered during the service, as it always did, and while listening to the homily the saddest thing popped into my head.

The celebrant was speaking about how amazingly and infinitely loving god must be, that we reject him but he still loves us; that we sin but he still loves us; that we killed his only son our lord, but he still loves us. The preacher expressed his surprise at how beyond a human capacity for understanding that is. God loves us no matter _what_ was his refrain.

What if at some point, god threw up his hands in despair. This most perfect of his creations, made in his own divine image, singularly blessed among all his creations with free will, had disappointed him yet again. When he came down here to try and spread his message to his beloved children, we KILLED HIM. God is disgusted with us once and for all and abandons us to the void of oblivion.

And now the people back here on earth, who had enjoyed true communication with thier uber-father, and had felt his magnificent presence through grace and miracles and intervention, were left crying out to the silence. Those who had known him most intimately in his human incarnation still vividly remember the joy and rapture of communing with god directly. The zeal and fervor inspired them to keep spreading the word of jesus, keep trying to get man to love his fellow neighbor. Having known god so intimately, they felt that everything that happened had to be part of his plan.

But it wasn't part of the plan for him to be betrayed. It wasn't part of the plan for jesus to be rejected by his own folk and family. It definitely not part of the plan for his precious son to be hung on a cross and left to die in complete torment. However, in perhaps the greatest show of deutero-canonical denial, they convinced themselves that scripture had in fact prophesied all of that, that everything was still going according to plan.

The moment that jesus cried out "eli, eli, lama sabachtani" (sp?) was the precise moment that god cashed in his chips and called it quits.

So now we have no god, truly and deeply. The worst part is, there's no way to tell if that's true or not. To us, it looks exactly the same if he's influencing and supervising, and if he's not there at all.

Pretty dark, huh? It all flashed trough my head before the fella finished the sermon. Incredibly saddened, but also wondering what woud be worse. Be agnostic and right, or believe that god has abandoned us and be right.

[QuickSilver]

Be atheist and don't worry about it.

[Arnold Winkelried]

It seems to me that since religion is an act of faith anyway, it would be more agreeable to believe in a loving god than in a god that has abandoned humanity. Of course from a rational point of view there is really no reason to pick one idea over the other (unless of course god has spoken to you directly to give you proof of its love, and you're convinced it hasn't been lying to you for its own mysterious reasons.)

I personally think that the best deal would be if we had eternal life filled with never-ending happiness for everybody, and people that that are evil reform their ways after death to become what perfectly good. But the chances of that are pretty slim. (And of course one has to define good and evil, but I won't get started on that.)

[jb_farley]

dammit!

i meant atheist...

yours til viagra falls,

jb

[jmullaney]

Well, we all have to die sometime -- at which point, if we are separated from God, we'll go to hell, or oblivion, or whatever you want to call it. At which point God would essentially be throwing up his hands -- there is nothing he can do for us then. But, there is no reason a newborn baby shouldn't get the same chance at eternal life as j.c.'s disciples.

[andros]

Well, we all have to die sometime -- at which point, if we are separated from God, we'll go to hell, or oblivion, or whatever you want to call it. At which point God would essentially be throwing up his hands -- there is nothing he can do for us then. (emphasis added)

Huh? Is God not omnipotent, then?

Or did you mean to say that there is nothing more that God will do for us then?

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by andros
Huh? Is God not omnipotent, then?
Or did you mean to say that there is nothing more that God will do for us then?
Correct. God is not omnipotent. I've never understood where anyone came up with that idea, outside of some Old Testiment mythology. We can reach up to God and grasp him, but he can not reach down and grasp us. And so into the abyss...

[mipsman]

You might be right. Maybe that is why the Temple was destroyed within the lifespan after the Crucifixion. He just got fed up. But that would require the Supreme Being to be a hard-assed, Old Testament kind of deity (loved Abel but hated Cain or loved Jacob but hated Esau, I forget which). I am pretty sure He is more loving and forgiving than that.

[Myrr21]

I kinda like that image...
::god throws up hands in despair::
God: "You little jerks, you just killed my son! Well screw you; you can all just take care of your own damn selves from now on."

Sorry, but born and raised atheist--can't really see anything but the humor value of this situation.

[David B]

If there was no God, people would invent Him.

I might suggest that's exactly what happened.

So if there WAS a god, and he left, then people would just go on merrily anyway.

[tracer]

jb_farley wrote:

When he came down here to try and spread his message to his beloved children, we KILLED HIM.

Yeah, but he rose from the dead again three days later, so we didn't really kill him.

But then, I guess Christianity wouldn't have sold as well if its slogan was "Jesus Christ temporarily died for your sins." ;)

[jb_farley]

first, i wans't thinking of god as a supreme hardass. more like it just surpassed even his abilities to keep going with us. not so much an angry decision, but an act of resignation.

tracer, true true. but if he wasn't supposed to die, i don't think a resurrection from the dead was part of the plan either. just another part of the 'massive denial'.

david b., right on the money. in fact, if our previous gather of psychic wills had been able to contact divinity, and then the divinity goes away, what if we truly hasd created our own gods? not the creation of a divine being, but the manifestation of signs that normally would be attributable to a living god.

[jmullaney]

I still can't see God abandoning us for something the Romans did 2000 years ago.

[David B]

Why not? According to some beliefs, He'll abandon you to an eternity of torture if you don't bow down to him in precisely the right way.

According to some beliefs, he punished all of humanity because of what two individuals did in some garden thousands of years ago.

I could go on, but I suspect my meaning is clear.

[mipsman]

Actually, David B, I think you should say according to some people's beliefs about some beliefs. Why would anybody be responsible for your (probably) deliberate misunderstanding of their beliefs.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by mipsman
Actually, David B, I think you should say according to some people's beliefs about some beliefs. Why would anybody be responsible for your (probably) deliberate misunderstanding of their beliefs.

David is certainly accurate in what he says:

"According to some beliefs, He'll abandon you to an eternity of torture if you don't bow down to him in precisely the right way." Are there not people who believe that baptism is absolutely essential to get into heaven?

"According to some beliefs, he punished all of humanity because of what two individuals did in some garden thousands of years ago." Is not this a widely held view of Original Sin?

David is just stating the truth that there are some beliefs out there that paint an extraordinarily poor picture of God when examined reasonably, using human values.

[gigi]

God is not ruled by emotions and given to throwing up His hands the way humans are. He has always existed and always will so how could he get tired out by our actions? Jesus came to earth to save us from our sin so God wouldn't be pissed that He was killed. God is eternally present to us, ready to take of us and in fact taking care of us in spite of ourselves. God is loving, forgiving and merciful, but also just. Hell is knowing the separation from God forever because of our choice of evil over good, not because God has stopped helping us and throws us into the pit. Original sin is removed through baptism which ushers us into God's family through our faith or the faith or our parents/sponsors.

As full of fault as we are because of the free will given by God, we are His treasured creation, and He loves us and will continue to help us do better.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
David is certainly accurate in what he says:

"According to some beliefs, He'll abandon you to an eternity of torture if you don't bow down to him in precisely the right way." Are there not people who believe that baptism is absolutely essential to get into heaven?

"According to some beliefs, he punished all of humanity because of what two individuals did in some garden thousands of years ago." Is not this a widely held view of Original Sin?

David is just stating the truth that there are some beliefs out there that paint an extraordinarily poor picture of God when examined reasonably, using human values.

Actually, since Catholism is still the largest Christian sect, I wouldn't call the protestant view of Original Sin "widely held." I just had a long discussion about this very topic Original Sin (:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29149") arguing the Free Spirit (another xtian sect) perspective -- but there is a link there to what the RCC teaches about this.

I think this also goes for hell, which the RCC defines as separation from God. Again, there are a billion Catholics, so what some latter day fringe groups believe about God or hell really should not concern you. Not believing in a false God never hurt anyone.

[jmullaney]

Oops -- that's Original Sin (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29149)

[jb_farley]

Originally posted by gigi
God is not ruled by emotions and given to throwing up His hands the way humans are. He has always existed and always will so how could he get tired out by our actions? Jesus came to earth to save us from our sin so God wouldn't be pissed that He was killed. God is eternally present to us, ready to take of us and in fact taking care of us in spite of ourselves. God is loving, forgiving and merciful, but also just. Hell is knowing the separation from God forever because of our choice of evil over good, not because God has stopped helping us and throws us into the pit. Original sin is removed through baptism which ushers us into God's family through our faith or the faith or our parents/sponsors.

As full of fault as we are because of the free will given by God, we are His treasured creation, and He loves us and will continue to help us do better.

depending on what your interpretation of the bible is, god has many times been "ruled by emotions". the flood comes to mind. he was ready to trash us all, and then made a promise to never try something like that again. so what if he felt just as angry (perhaps even moreso with the cold-blooded murder of himself/his son), but kept his promise, and instead of wiping man out, simply abandoned us?

do some hard core anthropomorphizing and think of god's situation. he mad eus with free will, but loved us. first, we eat the frickin fruit. he's mad, banishes us from paradise. he keeps seeing us making these mistakes and turning away from him, and it hurts him immeasurably. so he sends down a bunch of prophets, and kings, and judges, and they work for a little bit, or sometimes not at all. he does not want to take away our free will, for that is the essence of this most loved creation.

so he gets an idea. he will incarnate an apsect of himself onto earth. this incarnation will not force people to choose god, but will win them over with an overpowering love. god will have an even more intimate contact with us than even in the garden of eden, and man will start to choose to follow god more.

but what happen? we killed him. we could only take about three years of it, and we killed him. what else is god to do? what more could he do?

[Myrr21]

Actually, since Catholism is still the largest Christian sect, I wouldn't call the protestant view of Original Sin "widely held." I just had a long discussion about this very topic
Oh yeah, that's right--he must have forgotten that there are no protestants around. Certainly not in the US. Nope. OK, maybe three. Well, at least 40--given that every Pres of the US except Kennedy was (am I right here? Was there one other). And maybe some of the people who voted for them.

I mean, who put the "P" is WASP?
(all together now) "Protestants"

(FTR, I'm not one.)

[jb_farley]

oh and gigi,

---------------
As full of fault as we are because of the free will given by God, we are His treasured creation, and He loves us and will continue to help us do better.
---------------

this sounds exactly like the exhortations of the priest which started the whole thing going in my head.

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by jmullaney

Actually, since Catholism is still the largest Christian sect, I wouldn't call the protestant view of Original Sin "widely held."

<snip>

I think this also goes for hell, which the RCC defines as separation from God. Again, there are a billion Catholics, so what some latter day fringe groups believe about God or hell really should not concern you. Not believing in a false God never hurt anyone. [/B]

It most certainly is a widely held belief. It may not be the most widely held belief, but there are many millions of Protestants who will tell you that Adam's actions caused God to punish all mankind. While the RCC may have more adherents worldwide than any single Protestant denomination, do they have more than all other denominations? Even if so, is Truth subject to popular vote?

[gigi]

Originally posted by jb_farley

do some hard core anthropomorphizing and think of god's situation.

That's just it--you can't use anthropomorphizing to "analyze" God's actions. You're starting from a false perspective. God is. He "is who is". He is not human or ruled by human norms. Even if you take the flood as God's punishment, it's anthropomorphizing to believe that He did it out of anger, rather than justice. God is, regardless of the changes man goes through. Even if no one believed in Him, He would still "be" the same. Jesus suffered and died for our sins so we could be saved, so God is not angry that He was put to death. Sorry I can't do more than agree with the homilist, but it seems that judging God using human standards is faulty from the beginning.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Ptahlis
Even if so, is Truth subject to popular vote?
You are right -- forget what I said.

[Tennessee Ben]

It would seem to me that it was, in fact, part of the plan. From the prophecy of Isaiah, ch. 53, RSV:


verse 6:
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

verse 10:
Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him;
he has put him to grief;
when he makes himself an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand;


It's important to remember that this is Old Testament scripture--that is to say, it's not a post-crucifixion rationalization of why we did our awful things, but a pre-Messianic prophecy of God's will for His son and His people.

The whole argument hinges, of course, on whether we accept Isaiah's message as true prophecy, that is, as the word of God given to man. But inasmuch as Jesus made frequent reference to it (and in doing so, affirmed its veracity), to the degree that we accept Jesus' story, we ought to accept Isaiah's prophecy.

Respectfully,
Ben

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Tennessee Ben
From the prophecy of Isaiah, ch. 53, RSV:

...
when he makes himself an offering for sin,
...


Isn't there a pronoun missing here? Is he making for himself an offering for sin, or making of himself an offering for sin? Sounds like a stretch of translation to me. Does anyone know where I can find an english translation of the OT online without a christian slant?

[David B]

mipsman said:
Actually, David B, I think you should say according to some people's beliefs about some beliefs. Why would anybody be responsible for your (probably) deliberate misunderstanding of their beliefs.Wrong.

As Ptahlis has already demonstrated, I was perfectly accurate in what I said. And if you doubt it, please point the specific part that is wrong. Otherwise, I will await the retraction of your accusation that I made "(probably) deliberate misunderstanding of their beliefs."

[mipsman]

Actually David B., you might very well have looked into some one's soul and seen what he or she believes. If that is the case, I'll stand corrected.

[David B]

I don't need to look into somebody's soul (which would be difficult, since there is no evidence they actually exist). You see, there is something called a message board -- perhaps you've heard of it? And people on these message boards talk to each other. In one that has an area for "Great Debates," people often tell of their religious beliefs.

Amazing!

[Tennessee Ben]

jmullaney-


...
when he makes himself an offering for sin,
...

Isn't there a pronoun missing here? Is he making for himself an offering for sin, or making of himself an offering for sin?


No missing pronoun. The idea that God made himself (in the person of Jesus of Nazareth) a sacrificial offering for the reconciliation of man to himself is a fundamental tenent of many Christian faiths.


Sounds like a stretch of translation to me. Does anyone know where I can find an english translation of the OT online without a christian slant?

The bits I quoted were taken from the Revised Standard Version available online at the University of Virginia's eText Center (http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html). The RSV is the generally accepted scholarly translation.

Respectfully,
Ben

[jmullaney]

Thanks, Ben. I don't know, but at http://bible.gospelcom.net/, almost every major translation of this text comes out different. I am exactly suspicious because this translation just happens to support this tenet of some xtian faiths. I would be curious to see what the translation of this book would say in English if done for Judaism also, but I have been unable to find this online anywhere (I've found some of the OT, but not this book.)

[Tennessee Ben]

Noticed the same thing immediately after posting last reply... the KJV goes into "thou" making a sacrifice. At best, that muddies the waters.

The best I can hope for is to read the passage in context (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new?id=RsvIsai&images=images/modeng&data=/lv2/english/relig/rsv&tag=public&part=53&division=div1). Since the rest of the chapter is about the "he" upon whom God laid our iniquities, and since I believe the "he" to be Jesus, God himself, then the conclusion about God making himself an offering for sin follows quite naturally.

I'll keep reading.

Thanks for demanding accuracy,
Ben

[jmullaney]

Every one is different. Sometimes, he himself offers himself for sin. Sometimes, you offer him for sin. Sometimes, the Lord offers him for sin. Sometimes, he offers his soul for sin. Sometimes, he offers his soul for guilt. Sometimes, you offer his soul for guilt. None of them seem to make clear the "he" is supposed to someone be also "He" (i.e. God) except for one translation which merely capitalizes "he." The word "for" also has a dozen different meanings in English -- I fail to see why the translation can not be more exact. Because of? In exchange for? In order to recieve? Or as you might gloss it, to free from?

I wouldn't say we've entirely entered the realm of Nostrodomus-like twisted translations-- but it sounds like Isaiah could be describing almost any saint or prophet (at least male ones) put to their death for their beliefs.

[Liberal]

JMullaney

Please understand that a translation is not (necessarily) a transliteration, and in fact, a transliteration is (more often than not) a mistranslation.

I translated John for myself form the original Greek, and I know that the NIV is a very good translation of the New Testament. Not sure about Hebrew, but I did know (and do trust) one of the NIV Hebrew scholars, whom we called "the Reverend Doctor Doctor".

Strongs gives Isaiah 53:10 this way: "02654 03068 01792 02470 07760 05315 0817 07200 02233 0748 03117 02656 03068 06743 03027"

Transliterated, that becomes: "(Yet it pleased) (the Lord) (to bruise) (make him grieve) (when you shall make) (his soul) (an offering for sin) (he shall see) (his seed) (he shall prolong) (his days) (the pleasure) (of the Lord) (shall prosper) (in his hand)"

The Hebrew (using English letters and symbols) is given as: "chaphets Y@hovah daka' chalah suwm nephesh 'asham ra'ah zera` 'arak yowm chephets Y@hovah tsalach yad"

The NIV gives this translation: "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand."

Hope that clears it up.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Please understand that a translation is not (necessarily) a transliteration, and in fact, a transliteration is (more often than not) a mistranslation.

:eyes glazed over: Um, OK.

But, yes -- thanks for clearing that up. It makes perfect sense to me that Hebrew would have one word for "offering for sin." Sorry to have prattled on y'all.

[Liberal]

JMullaney

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Libertarian
Please understand that a translation is not (necessarily) a transliteration, and in fact, a transliteration is (more often than not) a mistranslation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


:eyes glazed over: Um, OK.

If you were translating "John was beating his brains out to solve the puzzle" into another language, you would say (in that language) "John was trying intently to sovle the puzzle". The literal translation (or transliteration) might cause some misunderstandings.