How can God be saddened when he knew ahead of time that His children would disappoint Him?
kanicbird’s god is evil. He creates souls apparently for the joy of torturing the majority of them, and spares a minority so that the suffering of the rest is better highlighted. He’s like a serial rapist who deliberately targets young Catholic women so that he can impregnate them, knowing that they’ll either abort the babies and have to deal with the guilt of breaking their moral codes or that they’ll have the babies and always be reminded of him when they think about the child.
There are a lot of varieties of Christianity. I’m glad to see some of it moving away from the constraints and encouraging more exploration. Still, too many people hand over their thought process to those who have assumed authority and profess to know. Sometimes I think it’s a security thing. By granting leaders authority to declare what is right and true people have a secure structure to live within. When I was talking to an old friend from church and sharing some alternative ideas one of her church friends referred to me as dangerous. simply because I had her asking questions.
Agreed. Structure isn’t a bad thing as long as we are free to go outside when we choose to.
I assume you’re talking about mental and emotional constraints that keep us from exploring new possibilities. Discipline might be seen as a constraint but seems very helpful. I came to a point where I realized I had to pursue what I thought was true rather than what others told me was true.
One thing I notice in this culture is the reoccurring need to “know” and to “be right” Often it can’t just be an idea that someone is exploring or finds meaningful. It has to be correct, not only for them but for everyone else as well. Talk about constraints.
I heard a preacher once say that studying the Bible would come in handy when you were in a difficult life situation and had a hard choice to make. Often when the question arises in your mind a biblical passage may come to mind to answer the question. That makes sense to me. I find we can develop a sense of trust in our own inner voice. Too many times I’ve denied mine only to realize later I should have listened.
The extreme of this book was written by God really bothers me. Even the concept that somehow God intended for us to have a particular book as a guide over other books disturbs me. It’s a book. Words on pages. Use it and enjoy it but take personal responsibility for the choices you make rather than claim divine justification.
I see a difference between those who exist within a religious tradition as something they are passing through along the way and those who cling tenaciously to the dogma of their particular tradition. Structure can be helpful as we explore but sometimes very dogmatic religion reminds me of Plato’s allegory of the cave.
I’m still looking for him. 
Yeah, but unless they have ditched the Bible and are on the verge of dropping the label “Christianity”, it is not even in the direction of what I am thinking about.
I have heard that too. I doubt it is an independent thought process that comes up with it, but just a ingrained reaction to indoctrination. which brings up a topic for another thread sometimes - when we have competing indoctrinations in education (secular) and religious life, (and we do), what is the outcome?
I don’t think that is what I was saying at all. The Aikido teachers I had I think would say not to go outside the basic form until you have mastered it, and by the way, no one ever mastered it yet.
Yeah, not only that, but it is not common to come across people who can have a discussion in the form of “devils advocate” or something similar. I get in a lot of trouble for that because people either can’t tell the game or don’t even know it as a method of learning for everyone. To me that is the best value of this message board.
Sure any system of forms can be useful in a pinch. But is one set “right” to the exclusion of another or all others?
Would the preacher say that studying the Bible the way the evil church across the street does is just as valuable should you be in a pinch? I’d guess not. Our way or no way seems to be the song I hear from every church.
well, I think structure maybe can be both stifling and freeing. The question is how do you tell the difference if that is the case, and which one is more beneficial to individuals and groups?
No. Many teach common principles so putting the principle to practice in everyday life can be beneficial on several levels.
I do get weary of the term Christian principles or Christian values. Sometimes I’ll ask them to elaborate. “Please tell me which principles and values you think are uniquely Christian.” So far no one has.
Not quite every church but it’s a good point. I can’t wrap my mind around some things. When Christians seem to think that an act of love and compassion aren’t legitimate because they weren’t done in the name of Jesus I just don’t get it.
IMO each person must choose their own path and it seems clear that what works for one may not work for another. A few years ago I heard a preacher who was a councilor at the college I attended. He had several young students who were straying from the traditions of the church trying to find their way. He said he was very concerned about them leaving church tradition but in praying and meditating on the situation he felt he received a clear strong message to leave them alone and let them find their own way. I almost jumped up and yelled amen!!! It’s more important that whatever path they choose is meaningful to them and they are true to themselves rather than wrapped in a particular doctrine and denomination.
The fact that he got that was encouraging to me. The fact that he felt it was important enough to share was also a plus.
It’s up to the individual and personal timing. Structure and discipline may be helpful for some undetermined period of time. When the time comes for them to move on but they don’t for various reasons, then it becomes a stifling.
A G-d who judged us based on our belief, or lack thereof, would be a monster undeserving of worship. I think it was Rabbi Hillel who once said 'What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is only commentary". So, if you believe in G-d, you should just be nice to people. If you don’t believe in G-d, is it asking too much that you just be nice to people? In my opinion, G-d holds the good deeds done by an atheist in higher esteem than good deeds done by a believer. The believer may have done those good deeds, even in some small part, in expectation of heavenly reward. The atheist has done many good deeds without expectation of a reward of any kind. They have done the right thing simply because it is right. If that ain’t enough to get us into heaven, G-d is just a bastard.
I even think something like that is in the NT
The idea that these people did these deeds of compassion to others and they did not recognize it as deeds of service to the big J says something about the lesson here IMO. Jesus is stressing that the act born of the sincere heart is more important.
I had a schizophrenic friend in catholic high school who reasoned that it was impossible to go to hell, even if you intended to. He didn’t believe the catholic teachings, but he figured that if jesus died for our sins, then we must be forgiven automatically. Like a get out of jail free card, but without the trip to jail. So do what thou will, if you believe it.
Maybe he created humans so he would have some company.
Something interesting about these ideas is what it says about the psychology of people asking, that they would assume that if God existed he would be either indifferent or malevolent.
That was Luther’s thinking,hence he opened the door for people to use their own mind, translate the Bible to their own way of living.
One of the questions on the board today is the sound of one hand clapping. It is a good example(I think )of how two people rejoicing over the well being of others makes a bigger sound, just as 2 hands are best for clapping and we usually clap for another’s good actions. A secular thing of course, but a way to encourage another to be their best.
God loves you and will forgive you when you do wrong its only natural that in return he wants your love and your trust, a personal relationship with him if you will. One day soon he hopes to get full custody.
What is says about their psychology is that they’ve noticed the state of the world around them but have failed to swallow any religions buffet of apologetics. Lots of the world is a nasty place, and unless somebody’s talked you out of doing so it makes perfect rational sense for a person to decide that the state of the world is reflective of any all-powerful stewards it may have.
Meditation can be a work, to the extent it brings about a change in that individual.
Prayer, is largely ineffective, but I would say failed attempts are not without benefit to that individual as well. There are rare prayers that bring about some sort of action, but they usually do not.
In that vein, I would also say that any person convicted of attempted murder should be given the same punishment as the convicted murderer. One is simply more effective than the other. They both tried.
The problem is that it’s the acceptance of a partial idea. It’s a weird sort of anti-Christian theism. Cafeterian atheism if you will.
‘Well I’ll believe in Christianity as long as I get to abdicate all responsibility by eliminating the free-will aspect. If I get to resent God, then that’s ok.’
Also the idea that injustice exists is a statement of belief. Prove that injustice exists. Prove that there is something wrong or cruel about this world. Why would you believe that God is unfair? What does fair mean? Why should the world be any different than it is?
It’s just the Cafeterian atheism I find odd. ‘I don’t believe in the Christian God, but if he exists then he’s a bastard.’
It’s precisely, exactly as odd as saying “I don’t believe in Emperor Palpatine, but if he existed, then he’d be a bastard”. It also requires exactly the same amount of belief, the same amount of of “Cafeteria Palpatinism” - which is to say, precisely none at all. Zippo. Zilch.
No belief whatsoever is required to make assessments of a character’s described behavior and personality - their existence in reality is entirely beside the point. Obviously.
It’s kind of interesting what it says about the psychology of people who think that in order to talk about a purported diety, you have to believe it really exists.
And your third paragraph is the statement of somebody who has never read a newspaper.
Nah, it doesn’t even fly as literary critique. Because it’s not taking the whole thing into account. It eliminates free-will and salvation from the critique. That’s like talking about Palpatine but eliminating the Sith Lord part. You’re taking essential characteristics of the character, throwing them out the window so you can make a value judgment without having to think about those things.
As for the reading a newspaper thing, that’s just a non-sequitur. The newspaper doesn’t prove that the things it describes are unjust just because it says they are unjust. Why is raping children unjust? What makes it unjust? Why shouldn’t I proliferate my seed into as many 14 year old girls as I can? I know why from the sociological perspectives, but the character of God is NOT A HUMAN BEING, so from a literary perspective he is not bound by human moral constraints.
Is it unjust to have your house demolished by a hurricane? Is it unjust to be eaten by another species while your flesh wraps a piece of rice and is bound by seaweed?
Sure any character in any story can have any characteristics you want them to have if you are given carte blanche to change essential premises.
Emperor Palpatine was the messiah saving people from the evil rule of the Jedi who tortured Puppies and Fucked kittens! See how I just did that? I added something to the story, and now I expect you to debate the plot of Star Wars based on stuff I just wholly made up? Or what about the time that Palpatine saved Alderan from the rebel plot to murder its people and use Alderan as a forward base?
Or how about in Anna Karrenina when someone date raped her after slipping some Mickeys into her drink in a rave in St. Petersburg (Florida)?
If you’re going to look at it from a literary standpoint you can’t just eliminate accepted premises in order to make a rhetorical point about the character you’re trying to judge.
Oh now I can’t wait for that next “special knock on the door” I think that is excellent!
There is a difference between the deed doers not recognizing it, and the God not keeping score.
To me, solely on the evidence presented here, the Rabbi Hillel anecdote is the latter, the NT quote is the former.
But if you don’t know the sound of one hand clapping, and you don’t, then how can you say 2 are somehow better as though it is fact? In your case, you are just restating the premise, a la “I always eat steak for dinner so steak is the best dinner”. Is it really, even if you can’t possibly conceive of another meal for dinner right now?