God as Parent.

[Revenant Threshold]

A spinoff thread from this one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=458188)

It's been suggested in there and elsewhere in general that a good analogy for God's interaction with the world and us is like that of a concerned, loving parent, and we his troublesome children. Just as we wouldn't stick our kids in padded rooms and give them only nerf toys to play with until they're 18, tempting as that might be at times, God does not want us unduly shielded from harm, recognising that through adversity we learn and grow as people.

The first idea for debate then I suppose is more of a question; would you consider God as parent an apt analogy? Pretty much mostly a question for the believers among us. And secondly, does the idea of growth through adversity justify the existence of that adversity (assuming we can assign responsibility for that adversity totally or partially to God, which is itself a question, really).

I personally would say that it would be an excellent analogy, but only as long as we're talking non-omnipotent good deities. My problem with it is that I think omnipotence would mean the power to grant that which is gained by adversity without actually needing anything bad to happen. To be fair, I can think of a decent argument for this; it may be you think that what's important is not the having of compassion, or whatever good quality gained itself, but in the use of it; to pile another analogy on, God doesn't just want us to be fit, he wants us to run races, and in order to show our compassion or goodness that we have learnt, we need adversity.

Just as a side question in addition (pretty much only to believers who would accept this analogy); when do you think that we would be "adults"? To what would you say God is attempting to grow us to?

[begbert2]

I'm not a believer, so I'm not sure how much of this OP is directed at me...

I'd say that the 'parent' analogy is appealing because it makes a sort of intuitive sense (especially to parents); however, I don't feel that it works very well once we extend past the set of 'small' sufferings that many of us computer-owning folks have be fortunate in being limited to. Some troubles can be seen as growth and learning experiences. Starving and then getting shot for no apparent reason and largely through no fault of your own...not so much. Further, the 'loving parent' analogy seems to break down considerably when the hardship gets so harsh that no loving parent would wish for or avoid preventing such suffering in their children. Attempts to compensate for this flaw in the analogy tend to open up further troubling avenues of speculation without truly accomlishing their goal of compensating for the flaw (such as questioning whether one person might exist only to serve as fodder for another person's test).

In short, I think the parent analogy is one that you'd only accept if you had a predetermined conclusion and you were looking for support for it - any support. being sufficient. I do not think that this analogy is applicable enough to the reality it attempts to explain to satisfy anyone not so inclined to be forgiving of its faults.

As for the second question (which might be directed at me), I can easily see posing your child problems to overcome in an effort to teach them things - assuming you also ensure that they have the tools to accomplish the problem. However this only works to the extent that the problem is not so heinous that it constitutes abuse in its own right. I also can't see setting forth problems just to give your child a chance to show off their talents; at best that kind of toying with your kid is irresponsible, at worst damaging.

[Napier]

Athiest here, but I've thought about the God = Our Father angle for years. It is an appealing idea for two reasons. First, I think we tend not to want to be in control; that is, we want there to be something more important out there than we are, something wiser to follow. So we would invent such a being. And, second, a few authors have suggested that the great human need to learn during childhood has made us evolve a sort of window of gullibility for dealing with our parents, for accepting whatever they say as the truth, for being wide eyed and naive and just taking in everything they have to offer us, and that this window remains open in adulthood and finds God is a source that fits in that window in a satisfying and reassuring way.

[Der Trihs]

I think that would make God a REALLY bad parent. The problem is, human existence has been one of extreme deprivation and suffering, especially historically. Human history is a nightmare from which we have only begun to wake up from, tyranny heaped upon atrocity upon disaster. It's as if a parent handed his kids over to caretakers he KNEW would beat and rape and mutilate and starve them, while keeping them in cage in a dark closet. That is definitely not a good parent.

As I see it, if God could have done better he should have in order to qualify as a "good parent". And if he couldn't do better, he shouldn't have created us at all. On balance, human existence has been a negative; for most of history, we've mainly contributed a higher quality of suffering and evil to the world than animals could achieve.

[Mosier]

I think that would make God a REALLY bad parent. The problem is, human existence has been one of extreme deprivation and suffering, especially historically. Human history is a nightmare from which we have only begun to wake up from, tyranny heaped upon atrocity upon disaster. It's as if a parent handed his kids over to caretakers he KNEW would beat and rape and mutilate and starve them, while keeping them in cage in a dark closet. That is definitely not a good parent.

As I see it, if God could have done better he should have in order to qualify as a "good parent". And if he couldn't do better, he shouldn't have created us at all. On balance, human existence has been a negative; for most of history, we've mainly contributed a higher quality of suffering and evil to the world than animals could achieve.

Nobody has kept us in a cage, except maybe we ourselves. God is more of the "hands off" type of parent.

[smiling bandit]

Whoo boy.

Giving any kind of hypotheticals or analogies with my God is rather difficult. By nature, no such analogy can be accurate. But at the same time, we're trying to comprehend the infinite with finite tools, so it's about all we have. As an analogy to that: it's like using various sybols in mathematics for infinities.

God is like a parent in some ways but not others. Unlike a parent, He's not afraid of us not meeting His expectations, exactly. He doesn't want us to take after Him; by nature, we're different than He. And there is neither shame nor sorrow in that. He is like a parent in that we are born from Him, but he is unlike a parent in that we were deliberately formed from nothing to exist. None of us is an accident, none of us is unintended, and none of us does not have a place in the universe. And there is no relative difference betwen those places, no pride of place to worry about. He does want us to be happy, healthy, and well.

[Der Trihs]

Nobody has kept us in a cage, except maybe we ourselves. God is more of the "hands off" type of parent.Our sheer lack of resources and knowledge has been a cage; it has grossly limited what we can do or stop. A great deal of humanity's suffering has occurred because because we lacked the knowledge or power to stop it.

And malign neglect is not "hands off".

[Voyager]

Not to hijack, but perhaps god as pet owner is a better analogy. Our kids grow into adults, and eventually take care of us, but a god would be as far above us as we are to hamsters. We make our dogs suffer by taking them to the vet for their own good. We don't do everything they want. My dogs are starving to death most of the day - or at least they look at me that way whenever I'm anywhere near food. And some people mistreat pets randomly. And many pets take it and keep loving their abusers.

[Clothahump]

A spinoff thread from this one. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=458188)

It's been suggested in there and elsewhere in general that a good analogy for God's interaction with the world and us is like that of a concerned, loving parent, and we his troublesome children. Just as we wouldn't stick our kids in padded rooms and give them only nerf toys to play with until they're 18, tempting as that might be at times, God does not want us unduly shielded from harm, recognising that through adversity we learn and grow as people.

The first idea for debate then I suppose is more of a question; would you consider God as parent an apt analogy?

Given that no one has proven the existence of a god of any kind to be true, it's kind of a moot question.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume a god exists. Let's then examine the history of his/her/its relationship to humanity from a parent/child point of view.
If we do, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that our god is a sick, sadistic practical joker.

[Thudlow Boink]

The first idea for debate then I suppose is more of a question; would you consider God as parent an apt analogy?As parent to whom? Humanity as a whole? To specific groups of people? To individual human beings, and if so, to all of them, or just to some of them?

In an attempt to see what a Christian answer to that question might be, I searched on appearances of the word "Father" in the gospels, and I found something that may or may not be interesting: Jesus frequently refers to God as "Father," but sometimes, he says "my Father," sometimes "your Father," and sometimes "the Father"—and one passage that certainly implies that Jesus would not have said that God was a father to everyone:"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your own father does."

"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.


My problem with it is that I think omnipotence would mean the power to grant that which is gained by adversity without actually needing anything bad to happen.I'm not so sure this is true. I think there may very well be things which could be gained by adversity or struggle which could not be granted by omniscience: things that have to grow organically rather than suddenly appearing *poof* as if by magic. Think of memories and experiences we look back on: There'd be something false and bogus about God implanting memories in us. And love: if God made us love him and/or other people, would that really be love, of the freely given sort that we and, presumably God, cherish?

when do you think that we would be "adults"? To what would you say God is attempting to grow us to?To be like Christ, is I think the best Christian answer.

[Der Trihs]

I'm not so sure this is true. I think there may very well be things which could be gained by adversity or struggle which could not be granted by omniscience: things that have to grow organically rather than suddenly appearing *poof* as if by magic. Think of memories and experiences we look back on: There'd be something false and bogus about God implanting memories in us. And love: if God made us love him and/or other people, would that really be love, of the freely given sort that we and, presumably God, cherish?Revenant Threshold said "omnipotence", not "omniscience", which by definition CAN just *poof* anything into existence. And there's no reason to believe that God would have to place false memories to create any aspects of personality he liked in his creations. And as for love, the love people have for God is obviously not freely given. By your account, it's tortured out of us; by mine, it's a form of insanity.

It is NOT sane to love God, not when even according to his believers he has inflicted immense suffering on us "for our own good". If some mad scientist dropped children on an island as an experiment and let them grow up in a "Lord of the Flies" scenario, while inflicting plagues and 'natural disasters' on them, would you call him a loving foster parent ? Would you think he deserved the love of his victims ?

If God is a God, he's evil, or uncaring. If God is a parent, he's evil, or uncaring. If God is a pet owner, he's evil, or uncaring.

[BrainFireBob]

Some people don't grasp the concept of raising children to make their own tough choices. Make the choices for them, and they never grow up.

[matt]

Some people don't grasp the concept of raising children to make their own tough choices. Make the choices for them, and they never grow up. Exactly! To teach them responsibility, turn the heat off in winter and turn it up to full in summer. Throw them out of the house entirely once in a while. Put liver flukes in their drinking water, malaria mosquitos in their rooms. Give them 2000 calories of food between them occasionally and let them share it, or if they get too hungry, fight over it. It's for their own good.

It's our choice whether we help each other out in this harsh world, or add to our own problems. Arguably it's also our choice if we live on flood plains, earthquake zones, volcanic slopes, maleria regions, tornado belts, hurricane regions. Not a good argument, but you can make it. But parasites, genetic diseases, birth defects? Unavoidable, undeserved awfulness helps us grow up?

[monavis]

I cannot see God as a good parent because first of all he hides from his children and they must just believe He exists or they are punished. He makes them beg for their daily bread etc. To me a Good parent (who would know ahead a time what his children would do) does not need to have them beg for favors,he would know their needs and provide then if they asked or not, nor would he grant anything to them he knew would be harmful. He wouldn't expect the younger child to be brought up by the elder, but would communicate with all his children, not just pick out a few and expect the rest to do as the older one said was what he wanted them to do,knowing he had created a flawed species who would teach them falsehoods.

Monavis

[Lord Ashtar]

Human history is a nightmare from which we have only begun to wake up from...
Would you mind elaborating on this please?

[Lord Ashtar]

Given that no one has proven the existence of a god of any kind to be true, it's kind of a moot question.
Thank you so much for stopping by to offer this gem of wisdom.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume a god exists. Let's then examine the history of his/her/its relationship to humanity from a parent/child point of view.
If we do, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that our god is a sick, sadistic practical joker.
Why is that "the only conclusion that can be drawn"?

[CalMeacham]

Bill Cosby has been doing a routine for twenty years now where he says that, now that he's been a parent, he understands God better. He imagines God as a parent, talking to Adam and Eve as 3-year olds.


"Didn't I tell you not to eat that fruit from the Tree in the middle of the Garden?"
"Yes."

"Well, they WHY did you eat it?"


"I don't know."





On a more serious side, I've read a suggestion that we are neotenous apes, in a perpetual childhood, as domesticated dogs and cats (and, potentially, domesticated foxes) are neotenous versions of wolves and cats, retainiong childlike features and psychology. Dogs and Cats look up to their human masters as if they were parent wolves and cats. Domesticated Humans look up to ... what? Leaders, one supposes, and the concept, it is suggested, of a super-parent god.

[Der Trihs]

Would you mind elaborating on this please?Have you ever actually bothered to read any history ? Genocides, plagues, short lifespans, natural disasters, rotten food, no food, birth defects, ignorance, and on and on. History is a horror show. Your wonderful God dumped his "children" into the wilderness with no education and stone tools, leaving them to claw themselves up to where we are now. No thanks to him, even if he exists. Assuming he exists, we owe him nothing but hate.

[Czarcasm]

Thank you so much for stopping by to offer this gem of wisdom.


Why is that "the only conclusion that can be drawn"?Gee, I don't know.
How about sticking the equivalent of a loaded gun in the middle of the Garden of Eden, then making a point of pointing at it and telling two young innocents "Don't touch it!" How about the flood, where all the guilty as drowned, including all those sinful babies and evil wild animals. How about God hardening the heart of Pharaoh. How about making a specific point of telling a group of people fleeing a city that is being destroyed not to look back at the home they've lived their whole lives, knowing damn well that some would be compelled to do so("Don't think of elephants for the next 30 seconds"), thus bringing death to Lot's wife, and grief to Lot.
You want more?

[Thudlow Boink]

Revenant Threshold said "omnipotence", not "omniscience", which by definition CAN just *poof* anything into existence. And there's no reason to believe that God would have to place false memories to create any aspects of personality he liked in his creations.An omnipotent being could have created us at 5:00 this morning, complete with implanted memories of what we think we remember from before that time. But there'd be something profoundly unsatisfying and fraudulent about that (or so it seems to me).

My point is that I think there are some things that an omnipotent being cannot simply *poof* into existence—memories of things we have done and experienced being perhaps the clearest example—without being fraudulent and unsatisfying.

[ITR champion]

The first idea for debate then I suppose is more of a question; would you consider God as parent an apt analogy?
I see 'God as parent' as a metaphor that can provide partial understanding of something which human beings can't ordinarily gain total understanding. Like any metaphor, it breaks down if it's extended too far.

And secondly, does the idea of growth through adversity justify the existence of that adversity (assuming we can assign responsibility for that adversity totally or partially to God, which is itself a question, really).
I see the existence of adveristy as a part of human nature. Hence, skipping over it and going straight to the full-grown stage would only be possible if humans were turned into something less than human. I realize that some view that as a technicality that God ought to be able to work around, but I don't.

Using another metaphor, a man is certainly all-powerful in relation to a glass bottle, since he can easily break the bottle into hundreds of pieces. But even the most intelligent and powerful person would find it a laborious process to put the pieces back together.

(Also, those who say that real human existence is horrible are really saying somethign about their own existence, not about humanity in general.)

[Mojo Pin]

An omnipotent being could have created us at 5:00 this morning, complete with implanted memories of what we think we remember from before that time. But there'd be something profoundly unsatisfying and fraudulent about that (or so it seems to me).

My point is that I think there are some things that an omnipotent being cannot simply *poof* into existence—memories of things we have done and experienced being perhaps the clearest example—without being fraudulent and unsatisfying.

Try telling the victims of the countless unjust and arbitrary horrors (something that has been mentioned several times but curiously sidestepped) that what they are experiencing is really just honest and satisfying reality.
Besides that, if humans can envision a world that is just a TINY bit easier on the unlucky ones (one idea: maybe that really really happy and shiny place we all want to go to when we die? how bout just starting us off there?), think what your omnipotent god should have been able to do.

[Lord Ashtar]

Have you ever actually bothered to read any history ? Genocides, plagues, short lifespans, natural disasters, rotten food, no food, birth defects, ignorance, and on and on. History is a horror show. Your wonderful God dumped his "children" into the wilderness with no education and stone tools, leaving them to claw themselves up to where we are now. No thanks to him, even if he exists. Assuming he exists, we owe him nothing but hate.
I have read history, thank you very much. I'm also well aware of your distaste for the very concept of theism. I was just interested in what you meant by "waking up from history".

[Lord Ashtar]

How about sticking the equivalent of a loaded gun in the middle of the Garden of Eden, then making a point of pointing at it and telling two young innocents "Don't touch it!"
I'm not a parent, and I don't play one on TV. However, I have seen parents bring things home that were not for their child(ren), explicitly told them not to touch it, been disobeyed, and had to send the kid(s) on a timeout. Sounds like the story of the Garden of Eden to me.

Of course, that's assuming you take the story of the Garden of Eden literally.

How about the flood, where all the guilty as drowned, including all those sinful babies and evil wild animals.
Yeah, a lot of people supposedly died in the Flood. That's a pretty dickish thing to do, assuming you take it literally.

How about God hardening the heart of Pharaoh.
From strictly story-telling perspective, I've always wondered why this was added, since it indeed makes God look like a dick. But I suppose one has to take it literally for that to really matter.

How about making a specific point of telling a group of people fleeing a city that is being destroyed not to look back at the home they've lived their whole lives, knowing damn well that some would be compelled to do so("Don't think of elephants for the next 30 seconds"), thus bringing death to Lot's wife, and grief to Lot.
Have you ever told a kid not to touch a hot stove but they did anyway? See also the first example.

You want more?
If your goal was to convince me that yours is the only interpretation, then you need to provide more.

[Der Trihs]

Hence, skipping over it and going straight to the full-grown stage would only be possible if humans were turned into something less than human. Or more than human. Humans are poorly made. And the simple fact that there are a great many perfectly functional humans who got that way without horrible suffering show that that sort of suffering is unnecessary.

(Also, those who say that real human existence is horrible are really saying somethign about their own existence, not about humanity in general.)No, we are showing that we've read history or watched the news. Billions of people have led short, miserable lives.

I was just interested in what you meant by "waking up from history".It should be obvious. We are finally beginning to overcome many of the ancient evils that have plagued humanity. We can cure diseases, build democracies, live longer, establish a rule of law, and so on. We've built for ourselves what a good "parent" would have given as a bare minimum.

[Mojo Pin]

I'm not a parent, and I don't play one on TV. However, I have seen parents bring things home that were not for their child(ren), explicitly told them not to touch it, been disobeyed, and had to send the kid(s) on a timeout. Sounds like the story of the Garden of Eden to me.

You wouldn't have to make do with just warning if you were an omnipotent parent would you? Come to that, you wouldn't even have to plant something totally inappropriate for your children smack dab in the middle of their room.


Of course, that's assuming you take the story of the Garden of Eden literally.

That's a pretty dickish thing to do, assuming you take it literally.

But I suppose one has to take it literally for that to really matter.


Please help my unimaginative mind along the path of interpreting these stories written in a tone that suggests not just fact, but Fact with the power of the Almighty behind it to boot. I mean, what kind of deep hidden meanings can you decifer fro mthese horrid stories other than what is readily apparent?

[Czarcasm]

I'm not a parent, and I don't play one on TV. However, I have seen parents bring things home that were not for their child(ren), explicitly told them not to touch it, been disobeyed, and had to send the kid(s) on a timeout. Sounds like the story of the Garden of Eden to me.

Of course, that's assuming you take the story of the Garden of Eden literally.


Yeah, a lot of people supposedly died in the Flood. That's a pretty dickish thing to do, assuming you take it literally.


From strictly story-telling perspective, I've always wondered why this was added, since it indeed makes God look like a dick. But I suppose one has to take it literally for that to really matter.


Have you ever told a kid not to touch a hot stove but they did anyway? See also the first example.


If your goal was to convince me that yours is the only interpretation, then you need to provide more.And god so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not not perish, but have everlasting life...assuming you take it literally.
I didn't write the book, but that doesn't prevent me from critiquing it. Until you come forth with a different version that contains just the passages you approve of, I'm going to go ahead a analyze the version at hand. In the Bible, God comes off as a sadistic ass, and ignoring the passages that show this is your problem, not mine.

[Lord Ashtar]

In the Bible, God comes off as a sadistic ass, and ignoring the passages that show this is your problem, not mine.
Never said I was ignoring anything. I was just showing that it's possible to have a different interpretation. Whether you accept it as valid is something else.

[Lord Ashtar]

Please help my unimaginative mind along the path of interpreting these stories written in a tone that suggests not just fact, but Fact with the power of the Almighty behind it to boot. I mean, what kind of deep hidden meanings can you decifer fro mthese horrid stories other than what is readily apparent?
The Bible can be viewed as a collection of stories, written by people who wanted to write down the oral traditions which were used to try and understand the incomprehensible. Doesn't mean any of it happened as it is written. The first two chapters of the first book don't even agree with each other.

[Lord Ashtar]

It should be obvious.
Must you always be so snarky? This is part of the reason I have a hard time having an intelligent discussion with you. (And I'm sure the fact that I believe in a magic sky pixie is what makes it hard for you to do the same with me, I'm sure.)
We are finally beginning to overcome many of the ancient evils that have plagued humanity. We can cure diseases, build democracies, live longer, establish a rule of law, and so on. We've built for ourselves what a good "parent" would have given as a bare minimum.
In curing some diseases, we've created others. Take the disinfectant-resistant bacteria for example.

I'd be interested in hearing you point to a democracy that you consider to be a good thing and not inherently corrupt.

The Bible says people used to live for hundreds of years and that God established a rule of law, but you obviously won't buy that.

[hotflungwok]

In curing some diseases, we've created others. Take the disinfectant-resistant bacteria for example.
Tell you what, you take the diseases that are no longer a threat because of modern medicine, and I'll take the disinfectant resistant bacteria. Which one of us do suppose gets the better deal?

I'd be interested in hearing you point to a democracy that you consider to be a good thing and not inherently corrupt.
Inherently corrupt? How do you figure?

The Bible says people used to live for hundreds of years and that God established a rule of law, but you obviously won't buy that.
The bible also says that bats are birds, pi = 3, and that daughters getting their father drunk and raping him so they can have kids is just fine.

[Voyager]

It should be obvious. We are finally beginning to overcome many of the ancient evils that have plagued humanity. We can cure diseases, build democracies, live longer, establish a rule of law, and so on. We've built for ourselves what a good "parent" would have given as a bare minimum.
Bush just vetoed a bill against torture and you say we're waking up? You're an optimist, my friend. (The nightmare part I give you.)

[Voyager]

An omnipotent being could have created us at 5:00 this morning, complete with implanted memories of what we think we remember from before that time. But there'd be something profoundly unsatisfying and fraudulent about that (or so it seems to me).

My point is that I think there are some things that an omnipotent being cannot simply *poof* into existence—memories of things we have done and experienced being perhaps the clearest example—without being fraudulent and unsatisfying.
So? The Bible is fraudulent and unsatisfying also, but that isn't the reason not to believe in it - especially because feeling fraudulent is different from it being proved fraudulent through archeilogy and physics.

[ITR champion]

All this dickering about medicine changing over the years strikes me as rather absurd. Some of our atheist friends assert that all human life was misery all the time until quite recently. I find that claim preposterous even by atheist standards. Let's definie the terms.

Happiness is a mental state within the individual, not a set of conditions outside the individual. It is not true that long lifetime, for instance, is a synonym for happiess; if it were, we'd see every 90-year-old skipping around with glee. So the truth of the atheist claim won't be settled by studying the progress of medicine through history. It will be studying by whether people were actually happy, and everyone I know who's seriously tackled those questions has concluded the exact opposite of what the atheists in this thread concluded.

[hotflungwok]

Happiness is a mental state within the individual, not a set of conditions outside the individual.
By this definition a society cannot be happy, even if all of it's individuals are. Nope, doesn't work for me, try again.

[BrainFireBob]

Can't be unhappy, either. It either exists or does not exist.

[ITR champion]

By this definition a society cannot be happy, even if all of it's individuals are.Actually my defintion says nothing of the sort.
Nope, doesn't work for me, try again.If a statement of mine doesn't work for you, I generally considered that a plus rather than a minus.

[cosmosdan]

The first idea for debate then I suppose is more of a question; would you consider God as parent an apt analogy? Pretty much mostly a question for the believers among us. And secondly, does the idea of growth through adversity justify the existence of that adversity (assuming we can assign responsibility for that adversity totally or partially to God, which is itself a question, really).

I think it can be apt within limits. I agree with Napier that some people like the parent idea a little too much and want to stay children. I think we have to remember that as parents we hopefully want our kids to grow up and be responsible adults and our equals rather than stay dependent children. We don't usually know where the lines are drawn and exactly what to do to achieve that end but an omnipotent deity would.

begbert makes a good point. It's easy in relatively comfortable cable TV and computer land to accept this analogy but much harder when we see the extremes that some people truly experience. Still for the sake of discussion, let's consider a couple of things. As parents we accept the bumps and bruises that go along with childhood. Hopefully we teach our kids to make sound choices and to take responsibility for those choices. If they are rebellious children or if they make bad choices as adults how much can we really do?
Let's say my child is a drug addict and does all manner of self destructive things to support their habit. My heart breaks because I've offered my love and my help but they continue their course. What does my love for them require of me? I could lock them up and prevent them from doing drugs but until they wake up enough to deal with their own inner demons and make a conscious choice to change there's only so much I can do.

We can acknowledge that an omnipotent god could reach in and change our consciousness so that we don't have to go through such extreme experiences. IMO that's a different issue. Perhaps we volunteered to come and experience physical reality not knowing every detail but knowing we would find our way back. I think thats some of that non useful speculation begbert spoke of. Let's also keep in mind that if we are spiritual beings experiencing a temporary physical reality then our godly parent knows that no matter what we experience here we are ultimately safe.

I personally would say that it would be an excellent analogy, but only as long as we're talking non-omnipotent good deities. My problem with it is that I think omnipotence would mean the power to grant that which is gained by adversity without actually needing anything bad to happen. To be fair, I can think of a decent argument for this; it may be you think that what's important is not the having of compassion, or whatever good quality gained itself, but in the use of it; to pile another analogy on, God doesn't just want us to be fit, he wants us to run races, and in order to show our compassion or goodness that we have learnt, we need adversity. I tend to think the experience itself is the point. The journey is the point so if an omnipotent god transported us to our destination then we've missed it.

Just as a side question in addition (pretty much only to believers who would accept this analogy); when do you think that we would be "adults"? To what would you say God is attempting to grow us to?

Jesus said "be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" I also tend to believe in some sort of reincarnation since it seems clear that perfection won't be achieved in a single lifetime.

[hotflungwok]

If a statement of mine doesn't work for you, I generally considered that a plus rather than a minus.
Really? Oh well in that case, I define happiness as 'having no religion'. See? Now history has been one long miserable bummer, with a select minority only recently finding happiness. I win.

You can't just start throwing down definitions to suit what you think. If the people you are trying to convince don't agree with the definitions then you aren't really arguing.

[Voyager]

Let me try again. There is a big problem with the parent analogy, which is that parents want their kids to grow up and be parents also. If God were a parent, he'd be one keeping his children in the equivalent of short pants their entires lives. If I understand correctly Mormons think that Mormons, at least, become gods after they die. They might have a case for God being a parent, no one else does.

Saying no and taking kids to the circus are not the major roles of a parent. I'd say most of the maturing our species has done has been in spite of religion, not because of it. Religion has followed along, though.

[ITR champion]

All the western religions teach that the goal of each human's spiritual development is to become like God.

[begbert2]

We can acknowledge that an omnipotent god could reach in and change our consciousness so that we don't have to go through such extreme experiences. IMO that's a different issue. Perhaps we volunteered to come and experience physical reality not knowing every detail but knowing we would find our way back. I think thats some of that non useful speculation begbert spoke of. Let's also keep in mind that if we are spiritual beings experiencing a temporary physical reality then our godly parent knows that no matter what we experience here we are ultimately safe.The troubling (not 'non-useful') speculation I mentioned in my post above referred to ideas like large segments of the populations suffering for no better purpose than to be an object lesson, or people being actually being hurt and killed just because God wants to twit with their relatives' emotions. (Or were you referring to something I said in another thread?)

I think it's worth noting that, if our painful life-changing experinces here are considered unimportant to 'us' once we shake off this earthly coil, it seems to me that the 'us' on heaven would have to be a totally different entity than the 'us' here on earth, with the earth-us being nothing more than a puppet or playing piece that nobody 'real' up there in heaven gives a rectal emission about. We're not the kid; we're the hamster the kid puts in the microwave.

[Voyager]

All the western religions teach that the goal of each human's spiritual development is to become like God.
Not the one I grew up in, and I doubt any outside of Stranger in a Strange Land. How can we become like an omnipotent omniscient deity? Plus, remember the story of the Tower of Babel.

I can make a cheap joke about not wanting to flood my neighborhood, but I won't.

[Der Trihs]

In curing some diseases, we've created others. Take the disinfectant-resistant bacteria for example.But we have gained a massive net loss of diseases.

I'd be interested in hearing you point to a democracy that you consider to be a good thing and not inherently corrupt.All human organizations of an significant size and duration are going to be corrupt, since they are made of corruptible humans. That doesn't mean that some organizations are not much, much better than others.

The Bible says people used to live for hundreds of years and that God established a rule of law, but you obviously won't buy that.As pointed out, the Bible is full of lies.

Bush just vetoed a bill against torture and you say we're waking up? You're an optimist, my friend. (The nightmare part I give you.)An aberration, compared to the general historical trend.

Some of our atheist friends assert that all human life was misery all the time until quite recently. I find that claim preposterous even by atheist standards. Let's definie the terms.

Happiness is a mental state within the individual, not a set of conditions outside the individual. Which is strongly affected by the external world. People who are starving or dying of gruesome diseases or being tortured are seldom happy.

And the greater influence of religion in the past was another source of unhappiness, especially Christianity. Which is all about hatred of oneself and others, and of virtually everything that brings happiness or pleasure. You won't find much happiness in a society nearly completely controlled by a religion dedicated to promoting misery. Part of the nightmare we have been waking up from is the nightmare of societies controlled by religion; the rise of secularism is a great boon to humanity.

[Frylock]

Nobody has kept us in a cage, except maybe we ourselves. God is more of the "hands off" type of parent.

This doesn't seem to help. The line between "hands off" parent and "bad" parent needs some clarification.

-FrL-

[cosmosdan]

The troubling (not 'non-useful') speculation I mentioned in my post above referred to ideas like large segments of the populations suffering for no better purpose than to be an object lesson, or people being actually being hurt and killed just because God wants to twit with their relatives' emotions. (Or were you referring to something I said in another thread?) I'm not sure anymore.

I think the complex interconnection of events and consequences prevents us from saying people are hurt or killed just to teach a lesson to other specific people.

I think it's worth noting that, if our painful life-changing experinces here are considered unimportant to 'us' once we shake off this earthly coil, it seems to me that the 'us' on heaven would have to be a totally different entity than the 'us' here on earth, with the earth-us being nothing more than a puppet or playing piece that nobody 'real' up there in heaven gives a rectal emission about. We're not the kid; we're the hamster the kid puts in the microwave.
What? Is that conclusion any more likely than it's opposite?

I don't have to dwell on my father's death and stop laughing and enjoying life to note that it was a significant event that shaped my attitudes in part.

The concept that our physical bodies may be temporary doesn't mean we don't care about them or that we are puppets.

[cosmosdan]

Not the one I grew up in, and I doubt any outside of Stranger in a Strange Land. How can we become like an omnipotent omniscient deity? Plus, remember the story of the Tower of Babel.

I can make a cheap joke about not wanting to flood my neighborhood, but I won't.

too late

Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[begbert2]

I think the complex interconnection of events and consequences prevents us from saying people are hurt or killed just to teach a lesson to other specific people.Well, as I said, this theory would be a patch on the already unstable parent analogy. Myself, I reject all of it.

What? Is that conclusion any more likely than it's opposite?

I don't have to dwell on my father's death and stop laughing and enjoying life to note that it was a significant event that shaped my attitudes in part.

The concept that our physical bodies may be temporary doesn't mean we don't care about them or that we are puppets.Your position relies on the theory that every hardship can be overcome, by everybody. (Or that God doesn't care about those who can't make the cut, which is another valid persective held by many religions.)

If 'getting over' our hardships is an automatic result of passing on to some 'next world', regardless of how tightly we've been clinging to our trauma up until that point, then our earth lives necessarily have an unreality in that larger scheme of things.

[Voyager]

too late
:D

As for your quote, I guess that zaps the "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven" bumper sticker.
If someone was perfect, would they need to get absolution from Jesus? I thought the doctrine of original sin meant that no one could be perfect, ie sin free. If it said, strive for perfection, I could see it.

That seems to be the theological equivalent of a parent telling his kids to get 100's on all their tests. That's bad parenting, so your quote is another brick in the wall.

[cosmosdan]

Your position relies on the theory that every hardship can be overcome, by everybody. (Or that God doesn't care about those who can't make the cut, which is another valid persective held by many religions.)

If 'getting over' our hardships is an automatic result of passing on to some 'next world', regardless of how tightly we've been clinging to our trauma up until that point, then our earth lives necessarily have an unreality in that larger scheme of things.

My thought is that a part of growth is letting go of past experiences. That doesn't mean they don't count at all. I'm not 20 years old anymore but those experiences are a part of who I am. I don't cling to them or dwell on them but they are not unreal or devalued as they pass.

[cosmosdan]

:D

As for your quote, I guess that zaps the "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven" bumper sticker.
If someone was perfect, would they need to get absolution from Jesus? If we're talking about "I'm saved and you're not because you don't believe the correct things"
I find that brand of Christianity distasteful. My reading of the NT leads me to think that Jesus encouraged us to walk a path that included continued growth. IMO opinion belief in Christ means belief that the goal, like the standards he set in the SOM, is achievable.

I thought the doctrine of original sin meant that no one could be perfect, ie sin free. If it said, strive for perfection, I could see it.
That's pretty much how I take it.

1 Cor 13:9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

2 Cor. 13:11Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,and of faith in God,

That seems to be the theological equivalent of a parent telling his kids to get 100's on all their tests. That's bad parenting, so your quote is another brick in the wall. Not if it's possible and the way is prepared to achieve it.

[Voyager]

If we're talking about "I'm saved and you're not because you don't believe the correct things"
I find that brand of Christianity distasteful. My reading of the NT leads me to think that Jesus encouraged us to walk a path that included continued growth. IMO opinion belief in Christ means belief that the goal, like the standards he set in the SOM, is achievable.

I find the rapture bumper stickers worse. I think those are admitting the person may do bad things, which is a bit humble, at least. It does have the component that they'll wind up in a better place, which is indeed obnoxious, but that's at the very heart of Christianity.


That's pretty much how I take it.

Not if it's possible and the way is prepared to achieve it.
Telling a kid to do her best and to strive for 100 is far different from the Matthew quote which orders us to get 100 all the time. I thought Jesus was the only perfect human (thought the fig tree disagreed, no doubt.) I'm talking of perfection before death, of course. Unless you have a very loose definition of perfection, I can't see how it is realistically obtainable - and setting unrealistic goals is exactly the problem.

[cosmosdan]

Telling a kid to do her best and to strive for 100 is far different from the Matthew quote which orders us to get 100 all the time. I thought Jesus was the only perfect human (thought the fig tree disagreed, no doubt.) I'm talking of perfection before death, of course. Unless you have a very loose definition of perfection, I can't see how it is realistically obtainable - and setting unrealistic goals is exactly the problem.

I think considering JCs audience his point was to get them to look beyond superficial obedience to dogma and ritual but to look within for real change and growth. That process is still incomplete.

I don't see the Matthew quote as a "and do it right now" kind of commandment. Do you think a lifetime of learning and growth is a realistic goal? An achievable one?

[Voyager]

I think considering JCs audience his point was to get them to look beyond superficial obedience to dogma and ritual but to look within for real change and growth. That process is still incomplete.

I don't see the Matthew quote as a "and do it right now" kind of commandment. Do you think a lifetime of learning and growth is a realistic goal? An achievable one?
The goal of learning and growth is like striving for perfection. That's different from being told to achieve it. If you are told that lifetime learning is a good thing, you'd agree. If you were told that you should know everything, you'd reject it for being unrealistic.

Given the dubious provenance of the Jesus quotes, I don't think we say what Jesus meant, if he ever said that at all. More likely that quote was by the author of Matthew, or perhaps a misquote from another source. This guy was not the most accurate of all the four Gospel writers, after all.

[cosmosdan]

The goal of learning and growth is like striving for perfection. That's different from being told to achieve it. If you are told that lifetime learning is a good thing, you'd agree. If you were told that you should know everything, you'd reject it for being unrealistic. Correct.

Given the dubious provenance of the Jesus quotes, I don't think we say what Jesus meant, if he ever said that at all. More likely that quote was by the author of Matthew, or perhaps a misquote from another source. This guy was not the most accurate of all the four Gospel writers, after all.
Also true. The quotes are only food for thought regardless of their source.

Another quote was brought up months ago that I thought was interesting.
The rich young man in Mat 19

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

I find it interesting that Jesus seemed content with what the young man was doing but when pressed he told him what more he could do.

That is, if he said that at all.

[Voyager]

I find it interesting that Jesus seemed content with what the young man was doing but when pressed he told him what more he could do.

That is, if he said that at all.
And if the man had done it, what else would Jesus want of him? I don't know if the Disciples gave up all their worldly goods to follow Jesus, but they were hardly perfect even so.

It just shows it is futile to expect consistency and logic from the Bible. The writers seem to have been able to put down the most absurd things. Maybe one with better reasoning abilities tried to write a gospel, and then gave it up in frustration and hid in a cave somewhere.

[cosmosdan]

And if the man had done it, what else would Jesus want of him? I don't know if the Disciples gave up all their worldly goods to follow Jesus, but they were hardly perfect even so.
I took it that Jesus was talking about our degree of dedication in pursuing perfection not that giving up possessions automatically makes it so.

Whatever progress we make as individuals in this generation affects our influence on those around us and in turn the next generation and the next.


It just shows it is futile to expect consistency and logic from the Bible. The writers seem to have been able to put down the most absurd things. Maybe one with better reasoning abilities tried to write a gospel, and then gave it up in frustration and hid in a cave somewhere.

or the church burned them as heresy.