I’m sorry, but I don’t think it misses the point at all. If I conceive of omnipotence, I can easily conceive of a better way to let the priest know: telling him directly as soon as the mom-to-be is pregnant, and letting him exercise his free will at that point.
Such a strategy makes for boring storytelling, though, which is why the excellent show Wonderfalls resorted to Rube Goldbergian machinations for the doing of good deeds.
Is this an accurate statement of your beliefs?
God loves us as a father. He does the best he can by us, within the limits of not affecting our free will, not doing the logically impossible, and not doing a few other things according to limits I’m unaware of. When we see something like children born with agonizing terminal defects that nobody could have prevented or foreseen, that’s because that’s the best God could do by us given those other limits I’m unaware of.
If I had to start from scratch, ‘feel it in my heart’ might have been the phrase I’d have chosen. While the two are similar, and in fact probably describe the same innate sense, ‘heart’ conveys a certain spirituality that ‘gut’ lacks.
Yes, when you say ‘it seems to me’ that the father being there is superior, it shows only that you have failed to take into account the fobusionite issue.
When you account for fobusionite, it becomes clear the path that God must take.
Because we know that our children don’t understand fobusionite any more than we do, and so are unlikely to be comforted by it.
No, I doubt they do.
Correct – it’s a statement that it would do no good to explain the issue, because we could not understand it. It would be just like making up a word – say, like fobusionite and assigning it as the reason. Then when people say they don’t know what the word means, you can explain that if they did, they’d understand it.
True. If you don’t believe, this is hardly a satisfactory answer.
You’re welcome. I have excellent subjective reasons for my position, but I’m the first to realize that my position is not objectively reasonable.
Suddenly I have a vision of you as a highwayman in the Old West, Dio – travelling the countryside with a band of rogues, attacking stagecoaches and taking their booty for yourself. You must miss those days, to be so intent on hijacking this thread.
I think I understand what you’re saying here, but if that is how god shows his “love” it doesn’t make him sound very benevolent to me. The suffering that is going on en masse at any point in time makes it hard for me to believe there’s a lesson in there that’s meant for the rest of us. It also neglects to explain why history repeats itself. Why hasn’t god made it so we don’t repeat those same horrors over and over again? I think your answer is that his machinations are so far out of our realm of understanding that we can never comprehend them. And that brings me back around to the question, what is the point of having lessons if we never understand what they are?
I hope that’s not as convoluted as I think it is, lol. That always happens to me when I think about this sort of thing. I’m an atheist, but I have a theory that any creator/god/sky unicorn who created the universe and designed people is more mad scientist than benevolent entity. Nature itself is a good example. In my imagination the old guy with the white beard is thinking, “Those peons thought the earthquake was scary? I’m going to throw a couple of tsunami’s their way and wipe out their food supply to see what they do. And I’m gonna see if those silly churchgoers in New Orleans still worship me after I flood their city and destroy their homes.” And of course, that goes on and on endlessly.
Would religious folks say that satan is to blame for these types of things? I can’t help noticing god gets the credit for everything wonderful and good, but he never seems to get blamed for the horrors.
I don’t really believe in a god, even though my mad scientist theory makes more sense to me than anything I’ve heard from devout people with regard to religious dogma.
(I hope this is on topic. I got a little confuzzled about halfway through the thread.)
Fair enough. I obviously find that answer intensely unsatisfactory for myself, for reasons both that exceed the scope of this thread and that are already familiar to anyone who know the word “theodicy,” but I appreciate your explanation.
We don’t try to teach the cancer-suffering child a lesson when we give him chemotherapy. And that child doesn’t think the nurse that hooks up his arm to the chemo treatment is very benevolent.
There’s no reason to assume that God’s purpose in allowing suffering is to teach of a lesson. I personally think of it as more of a necessary consequence of the design of the world.
I appreciate the discussion we’ve had and I feel like we are at a place where we can wrap things up between us - however, I did want to ask you something relate to this. I didn’t want to assume your position, so if your answer seems as though it should be obvious, it’s because I’m trying not to second guess you.
So, my question is, how does this seem to you? Does it seem to you that the father (you could sub in ‘father’ for a human figure that would bring you comfort in a time of pain) being there is superior (or at least equal) to the experience of God being there (or in your heart, I’m not sure how to phrase this)?
Related: To me, it seems as though the father being there is more important to the child than an experience of God. Do you think this is the case as well for the child? If not, why isn’t it? We aren’t talking about understanding why the pain is occurring - so neither the father nor the experience would provide such to the child - we are talking about the comfort that is attained from the father or the experience of God.
As a child, I think i would have answered that physical presence of a father was superior.
But I think that’s because as a child, my Daddy knew everything and could handle everything. He was ten feet tall and strong as an ox and he knew exactly what to do in every single situation.
As an adult, I know all too well that I am not that man, even though I suspect my son still sees things that way… he recently was traveling with his grandmother and they missed a connecting flight, and he was quite nervous and upset. But in January, his mom and I were traveling with him, and the same thing happened – same airport, same leg of a flight, same destinations… he was not in the least disconcerted then.
So as an adult, I find the comfort God gives of more help than the comfort a person gives.
Or maybe she was terrified and had reverted to her toddler days. I really don’t know what was in her mind. Then again, neither do you…yet you often presume to know what other people have thought or are thinking.
In past threads, you have assumed/posited that women who choose not to have babies made that choice because they’ve been warped by modern society; that rapists and their victims have soul ties; and so on.
The difference is: that a Human father doesn’t know for sure or a head of time what is truly the best for his child, nor would he punish all his grand children or his linage because of some thing an ignorant child did, nor does he keep himslf hidden from his children, or punish them because they now knew good from evil. Were a human father to treat his children as the Abrahamic God does, he would be put in jail!
According to the psalmist Psalm 82 in KJV, The psalmist is quoted a s sayin,:I said you are gods and sons of the most high, Jesus used this when accused of blasphemy because he called God his father, he remined them of the psalmist and said, “it says in your Law you are gods”!!
There are many different definitions of the word Love, just as there are many different definitions of the word God.
To me the word Love means doing well and wishing another person well. No matter the circumstance one is in. Is that a definite translation?..I don’t know, but it is the one that suits me best. One can love a person, but not love some of the actions or deeds it does. Just hope the person can rectify bad behavior, because of the harm it does to others or even himself in some manner( or time later on in his life)!