It has nothing to do with not being able to overcome a person’s preconcieved ideas. It has to do with people making conscious choices , and striving to become consciously aware. Again, why creation at all, and the perception of duality? In Christian mythology it’s Adam and Eve gaining knowledge of good and evil that makes them leave Eden. Without any perception of good and evil, pleasure and pain, there is nothing to choose. From the book of Mormon
“And they would have had no achildren; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.”
So, in theory, it’s not that God couldn’t make everything perfect and do away with all suffereing in a blink. He could. Wouldn’t that put us back to where we were before creation, in a state where there was no option to choose anything? My own thoery is that if Creator and creation exists , then it seems the perception of duality and the ability to choose is an essential part {if not the essentail part} and purpose of creation.
Seriously?? IMHO the teachings of Jesus and Buddha , which are remarkably similar, have the potential to make the world in general a much better place if only people actually tried to followed them and spent time comtemplating them. even if it’s just as a philosophy
The reality is that mankind as individuals and as a species has to grow into that.
It seems to me that a sudden revelation that God exists might quickly be followed with the idea that a life after this one exists as well and I wonder if I’m getting any of that? Maybe not for some but for many, probably most.
For a lot of religions the raction might be, “oh good you’re here, tell everybody else we’re right” and for some preachers it would be, “holy crap, you’re real and know what I’ve been up to?..Oh shit”
FTR; I do not think God , if there is one, is in the saving business in the way most of Christianity presents it. I think if anything we save ourselves by seeking and finding.
Ok, you seem to have abandoned the idea you proposed in your OP, and are now laying out your particular theology. Which is fine and all, but I hope you can see how your reply above is completely disconnected from your OP, and my post that it’s allegedly replying to. Your original idea is what I had been addressing, the implications of a God that proved himself to sincere petitioners.
Only because our existing and fairly well established religious framework makes that “obvious” to many/most. However, I don’t see why that would be the correct assumption.
“Jesus is coming! Look busy!”
AFAIK, no-one gets out alive. But while we’re here, I do agree that we’re the only ones in a position to help ourselves. We don’t have a very good track record so far, but I remain optimistic that on average we try to do more good than harm.
By continuing to seek, by placing truth and growth as priorities, even if you don’t think there is one. One of the best realizations for me understanding that I don’t need to know and it doesn’t really matter if there is something after this physical life. That question will resolve itself in due time. In the meantime I can still strive to grow and mature as a person and be as positive as I can be for the people I encounter.
IMO , aside from any religous or spiritual beliefs, it seems very clear that the earth itself and all life on it can be seen as one complex living organism. Jesus uses the analogy of one body of which God is the head and the other parts shouldn’t be fighting over who is best or who is in control. Mankind does better when we see each other as peers rather than enemies or inferior races to be exterminated or used. We do better if we value our resources and use them judisciously. It also seems to me that in our growth as a species we have been striving towrd this very idea intellectually and emotionally. Now, as the economy becomes the world economy and polution in China and the US can eventually affect the rest of the world , we see it even more clearly. IMO, what is true on the largest scale is also true in much smaller scales. How we live as individuals and how we interact with others makes an impact , however small , on the society as a whole.
When we see civil rights as an important issue and strive to give others the rights we already enjoy, it acknowledges that connection. The desire to want to see society grow and improve for the next generation acknowledges it.
True. If he confesses that he is the deist God who created everything and wasn’t really invloved is another scenario.
,
That;s not all I wrote. there’s also “Try to treat each other and the planet you share with some respect and consideration. Love, would be great.”
it doesn’t indicate punishment by God for disobedience but I think consequences for choices made is enough.
I can see all that, but ultiamately and over time, I believe we’d be back in the same boat we’re in now. I’m thinking more long term than the immediate response.
Sure they would. Just as they do now.
I’m rather fond of the Bahai , who believe that most religions are the result of God sending someone to teach us, then giving us a 1000 years or so to work on it, and sending someone else. In their view , all the major religions are an expression of mankind trying to understand and communicate with their creator. It’s man’s limitations that create the confusion.
They also believe science and religion both reflect a search for the truth so scientific truth must be included in our efforts to understand. That isn’t relevant to this thread. I just like it.
No argument. I would consider any one-time communication to be a sloppy way to run Creation.
That wasn’t pointed at you, but at all of us. It applies to GD types of questions, but not so much this specific thread. It applies to a background that many argue over that’s relevant here, but not your main point (which was more of a question than an assertion).
I don’t think that quite follows. Knowing there is a God wouldn’t mean I don’t have free will. And who knows what the purpose of creation was (if any)?
Correct. It was the idea that God proves himself to an individual enough for that individual to say, “Now I know, there is a God, and he wants us to do better at caring about each other and the planet we share” Now What?
I was trying to point out that IMO at least, that wouldn’t be nearly enough because of the nature of mankind.
I’m really not. It’s assumed that an omnipotent God could make everyone believe and follow his will in a blink. It’s not assumed that making everyone believe and follow his will is the purpose of creation.
Why suffereing? Why do we have to struggle so hard to understand? Why are some people so kind and good, and others such assholes? Couldn’t God fix all that. Yes , he could, and doesn’t. Does that mean he’s kind of a dick, or could it mean that the whole experience of choice, free will, and percieved duality , good, evil , pleasure and pain, are an essential part, if not the essentail part of creation?
Right, and I imagine explaining his plan would at some point be like the analogy used earlier. Trying to explain the detailed biology of human reproduction to a 3 year old who asks where babies come from. Perhaps giving us a certain minimum is not being coy, but wisdom. Chew on this for a while , and when you’re ready, you’ll get more.
Also it’s not about obedience or just following the rules. When Jesus says love one another, or love your neighbor as yourself , how do we actually do that, rather than just go through the motions and try to be tolerant and decent? If there is creation it’s no accident that we are both intellect and emotion and our choices spring from a combination of those.
Ok, so it’s general theological discussion, then. I can do that.
There is no one universal truth, that will appeal to each person as the truth. Each person has to find their own meaning in life, and live it authentically. This may or may not involve continuous, conscious “growth” of some kind.
Symbolically, perhaps, but not in fact. Unlike the parts of an organism (tissues and organs, for example), individual organisms are a whole, they have an independent existence. At most, you could say that organisms are holons; both parts and wholes.
If you mean in purely practical terms of cause and effect, yes, people can be connected, but there’s nothing mystical about it.
That’s because it’s our boat, as humans. No divine figure is going to rescue us, or teach us to be better people. It’s just us, a species of advanced apes, trying to work things out.
because I tend to believe there is, or perhaps just emotionally prefer that belief, and am completely comfortable with not knowing because I’ve come to see that it doesn’t really matter. Whether I know or not , or believe or not, does not affect my choices about what’s the best I can do right now, for myself and others.
Overthinking? If you no longer are a believer, you’re now an atheist. There’s nothing to overthink. What definition are you using for “agnostic”? What’s your definition for “atheist”?
I tend to use the standard definitions. If those don’t make it clear to you and you can’t accept my declaration I don’t care. I have no interest in this foolish distraction.
The standard definition of “atheist” is one that is without belief in the existence of gods. It’s the definition every atheist on this board goes by, also. You’re an atheist.
And it’s not a foolish distraction. I brought it up because of this statement you made:
Since you no longer are a believer, then doesn’t the question apply to you also? You don’t believe anyone’s experience is real? After all, belief in God is already incredibly dominant in mankind.
