|
I'm not really interested in debating the same rehashed internet debate, but being religious I wanted to throw out the the idea of God as "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-powerful" is basically not a thing in judaism or any religion I know of. It's a thing atheists say God is because it's easy to "disprove" with basic logic. God is a creator, God loves Creation, but above all he's unknowable and incomprehensible. Any philosophical discussion that makes God into some all-powerful interventionist superhero is falling on deaf ears. Even if you're a biblical literalist (which I'm not- to me the Torah is very clearly a human creation, and there are other ways to know the divine that are equally valid), God needs to act through humans like Moses- he doesn't just smite Pharaoh and teleport the Israelites to the Promised Land. As to why I associate with judaism when I am so far from orthodox- I find the very survival of the jewish people and law inspiring, and the message of being "A Light Unto the Nations" inspiring. By living according to holy tenets, we can inspire others to find happiness in their own way, and I admire judaism's flexibility, it's commandment to always debate and ask questions. Read the old scholars but keep thinking. Find more truths about the universe. It's completely compatible with science and humanism, to me. Seeing and finding peace in the fact that we're all humans, loving each other, building a better tomorrow, discovering more about the universe and our place in it, that's what it's about. Atheist or not, we all have the same goals. Back to God, the closest way I can describe God is, if you've done it, imagine tripping on acid or shrooms, zoning out to music and letting the sounds and colours and wild thoughts take you away. It's incomprehensible but so beautiful and meaningful. I'm not saying God can be found in psychedelics (nor that he can't), but that they're the closest equivalent I have for describing this indescribeable and utterly unknowable force of love and creation. It can't be made sense of. The "omnibenevolent omnipotent all-powerful God" and his associated fallacies ring hollow to me, and I imagine many others, because the conception of God as a superpowered, thinking humanlike entity is so wrong. It's like trying to get a bacteria to understand a human- a nonstarter. We can't comprehend. Why do I believe? Ultimately it brings me peace, helps lead a fulfilling life and help others do so, and makes more sense to me than the idea that all that is, just is. The universe is so much more than what we knows, that I think it's wildly arrogant to assume we can comprehend it all either through science or logic. And I'm a biologist, so I'm not completely talking out my rear end. vintagepurple fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Jul 7, 2016 |
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
I imagine most people are speaking from and reacting to the Christian conception of God, which in most cases absolutely does describe him as omnipotent and generally conceives of him as conscious -- at the very least, as an entity which includes a fully human being in the form of Christ, which hears and responds to prayers, which loves, and which created human beings as a reflection of its own image. Also, separately from the logical-semantic argument about omnipotence, to say "God isn't an interventionist superhero" is to deny the literal miracles Christ performed, which, again, in most Christian frameworks is not only blasphemous but is the same as saying their entire faith is a lie. "God is not omnipotent" is a perfectly sensible resolution to the Problem of Evil but it's just that, a resolution. It's not an end-run, it's engaging with the problem on precisely the terms it sets forth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:I'm not really interested in debating the same rehashed internet debate, but being religious I wanted to throw out the the idea of God as "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-powerful" is basically not a thing in judaism or any religion I know of. It's a thing atheists say God is because it's easy to "disprove" with basic logic. I'd agree that such attributes aren't strictly necessary for Judaism, but when you say omnipotence and omnibenevolence are not part of any religion you know of, I'd question if you know much about Christianity? St. Thomas, Summa Theologica posted:Q 25.2 Does god have infinite Power? St. Thomas, Summa Theologica posted:Q 6.1. Is God Supremely Good? Christian Theodicy has been wrestling with the Problem of Evil for a looooooong time. EDIT: Side note, even though I disagree wholeheartedly with the conclusion, I would highly recommend the Summa Theologica to anyone interested in Theodicy. It's written in question and answer form, each question begins with a statement, and then objections are presented to the statement that range from the interesting to the astonishing. For example, Q25.2 quoted above is in response to the statements "God can't have infinite power because it would make him imperfect" (hmm), "God can't have infinite power because then he could make rocks too heavy to lift" (the usual objection), and the amazing "God can't have infinite power because it would break spacetime and cause all events in the universe to happen simultaneously". Reveilled fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:I'm not really interested in debating the same rehashed internet debate, but being religious I wanted to throw out the the idea of God as "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-powerful" is basically not a thing in judaism or any religion I know of. Well interest in debates aside, you should probably pay more attention in church and actually read the book. What you're talking about isn't Christian. Though I guess avoiding the prospect of an all-power all knowing,etc God is what's keeping you on your feet when the doubt and critical thinking sets in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Well interest in debates aside, you should probably pay more attention in church and actually read the book. What you're talking about isn't Christian. Did... Did you miss the multiple times where he said he was Jewish and not Christian?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Back to God, the closest way I can describe God is, if you've done it, imagine tripping on acid or shrooms, zoning out to music and letting the sounds and colours and wild thoughts take you away. It's incomprehensible but so beautiful and meaningful. I'm not saying God can be found in psychedelics (nor that he can't), but that they're the closest equivalent I have for describing this indescribeable and utterly unknowable force of love and creation. It can't be made sense of. To be honest, i would argue that it is entirely possible to understand the sort of experiences people have while on drugs like psychedelics. We have some idea what various drugs due in the brain, and at some point we'll probably be able to understand what agonist/antagonist activity at various receptors translates to in terms of feelings and experiences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:I'm not really interested in debating the same rehashed internet debate, but being religious I wanted to throw out the the idea of God as "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-powerful" is basically not a thing in judaism or any religion I know of. It's a thing atheists say God is because it's easy to "disprove" with basic logic. Posters above me have said this, but just to reiterate: Omni-God is far from an atheist caricature and if it's not a part of any religion you know of, you don't know of many religions. There is a direct New Testament verse which states "nothing is impossible with God". quote:God is a creator, God loves Creation, but above all he's unknowable and incomprehensible. Any philosophical discussion that makes God into some all-powerful interventionist superhero is falling on deaf ears. Even if you're a biblical literalist (which I'm not- to me the Torah is very clearly a human creation, and there are other ways to know the divine that are equally valid), God needs to act through humans like Moses- he doesn't just smite Pharaoh and teleport the Israelites to the Promised Land. God directly intervenes all the time. Noah's flood, burning Sodom and Gomorrah, stopping the sun so Joshua can complete his battle. And Pharaoh died because God parted the waters for Moses then released them onto the Egyptians to drown them. I don't know if you're glossing over these obvious counterexamples or if these don't count as "intervention" to you, but I think with the above two statements your conception of God is most certainly in the minority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Did... Did you miss the multiple times where he said he was Jewish and not Christian? I only read the first part and the rest was Emperors new clothes for me. The core problems remain the same. v--Mysterious ways man. Don't bother thinking about it. (This will be a legit response but with flowery language) Buckwheat Sings fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
If anything, Exodus reads more like God is mostly trying to either gently caress with Egypt or I guess charitably is only not teleporting the Israelites around because he thinks that suffering builds character. A need to work through humans I think is far less indicated than a desire to involve them.
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:I only read the first part and the rest was Emperors new clothes for me. The core problems remain the same. Why should a Jew be expected to have intimate knowledge of Christianity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why should a Jew be expected to have intimate knowledge of Christianity? Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful. Except he isn't in the eyes of vintagepurple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:Yahweh is all knowing and all powerful. Except he isn't in the eyes of vintagepurple. And a lot of other Jews. There are multiple stories about people out-thinking or out-arguing God, and one of God being beaten at wrestling. Also, you can't really dictate what people's beliefs should be to them, especially when you can't even correctly spot what they identify as.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Op have you considered that you're a fuckin wiener who should have been pushed into a locker more as a child
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why should a Jew be expected to have intimate knowledge of Christianity? When he said, "I wanted to throw out the the idea of God as "omnipotent, omnibenevolent, all-powerful" is basically not a thing in judaism or any religion I know of" I think that kinda makes it safe to assume he at least thinks he's got the basics down about one of the largest, most well known religions on the planet, particularly as it's one that claims as close connections to Judaism as Christianity does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And a lot of other Jews. There are multiple stories about people out-thinking or out-arguing God, and one of God being beaten at wrestling. Also, you can't really dictate what people's beliefs should be to them, especially when you can't even correctly spot what they identify as. I'd love to know some stories about people out arguing God. Those actually were my favorite parts of the bible since they're actually kind of fun. Buckwheat Sings fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And a lot of other Jews. There are multiple stories about people out-thinking or out-arguing God, and one of God being beaten at wrestling. Also, you can't really dictate what people's beliefs should be to them, especially when you can't even correctly spot what they identify as. There's also this joke: quote:So it seems that these four rabbis had a series of theological arguments, and three were always in accord against the fourth. One day, the odd rabbi out, after the usual “3 to 1, majority rules” statement that signified that he had lost again, decided to appeal to a higher authority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Op have you considered that you're a fuckin wiener who should have been pushed into a locker more as a child because that process clearly worked out so well in your case
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:There's also this joke: That looks like a cleaned up and down-played version, the one I'm familiar with is even better: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Halakha_&_aggadata_&_midrash.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Op have you considered that you're a fuckin wiener who should have been pushed into a locker more as a child psh yeah man that was the FIRST thing I thought of. But have you considered this: shut up, DUMMY HEAD
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:That looks like a cleaned up and down-played version, the one I'm familiar with is even better: Ah! I was looking for exactly that version and couldn't find it, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:So what about this solves the problem of evil, if indeed you are suggesting it does (even partially)? I think everyone is on board with suffering being a real event. How does God being on the gallows alongside Pipel annul his suffering? Isn't a child dying of cancer still suffering, needlessly, for nothing the child herself has done, even if God is suffering alongside her? The problem is not so much, "how bad does God feel about suffering?" so much as it is, "why was the concept of suffering invented and put into the universe to begin with?" First I said "as" not "alongside." Second it doesn't annul the suffering. As to "why was the concept of suffering invented and put into the universe to begin with?" I don't believe in answering that question. Any answer to that question is a justification for suffering, and that can be used to hand wave it away. Theocidy is a good way to quickly end up talking like a monster. More useful is understanding how other people relate to events that cause suffering in their lives. Our interpretation of events are always stories or constructed myths (and I include the ones like " God is the cross", "God is on the Cross" ,and "Why have you forsaken me?"). Basically it's talking about suffering in terms of our interpretations of what is (our experience of events where we suffer), as opposed talking about a hypothetical and abstract "why is suffering?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I don't believe in answering that question. Any answer to that question is a justification for suffering, and that can be used to hand wave it away. Yeah, but this is a ridiculous rhetorical dodge. Would you apply this reasoning to any other moral conundrum? "I don't believe in explaining why this thing is necessary, because I might sound like a monster if I did." If you have faith in God's goodness, you should risk sounding like a monster and take pride in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:If you have faith in God's goodness, you should risk sounding like a monster and take pride in it. You're going in the wrong direction. Where do I think God is and what ought I do following from that.The risk would be to follow the example of Jesus. To openly mock those of power. To be for, live my life for, all the mother's children, all the children of God. And to suffer for that end if it came to it. Barth wrote something to Bonhoeffer "the house of your church is on fire". Ours is catching fire now. We each may be finding out if what we belive in was worth risking soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You're going in the wrong direction. Where do I think God is and what ought I do following from that.The risk would be to follow the example of Jesus. To openly mock those of power. To be for, live my life for, all the mother's children, all the children of God. And to suffer for that end if it came to it. If my neighbor's house is on fire and the fire department refuses as a matter of policy to ever set foot in my neighborhood, I have two very serious problems and no reason to ignore either. A God who asks us to mock those in power should, more than anyone, be prepared and even glad to face our protests. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
I've always taken biblical stories mainly as metaphors for the human condition. I identify as a Christian in the most fundamental sense, meaning that I make a very conscious effort to forgive when dealing with people. Adhering to the very basic tenets of Christianity, basically love and forgiveness for all mankind, has done wonders for my mental state in the past few years. I'm happy, life moves in the right direction, and I like to think I've transformed from a destructive narcissist into someone who isn't a fatass with no friends. All of the dirty and disgusting parts of global Christianity, including the pedophiles, homophobes, racists, and whatever generally lovely people twist the faith for their own ends; those people are not relevant, and I do not consider them Christian. They do not affect my faith in the slightest. True Christians, of which there are very few, do exist. For example, my father, a pastor, has comforted and converted about a dozen people near the moment of their deaths, including my old housekeeper, two of my grandparents, even strangers, and expected absolutely nothing in return. My old housekeeper, an Indonesian lady, was diagnosed with terminal cancer when I was eight. My parents sat beside her at the hospital for a full eleven hours when her condition worsened, and prayed with her at her request. A few days before she finally died, she managed to tell us about a dream she'd had, in which she'd been brought up to heaven not to meet Allah, but Christ. She was a faithful lifelong Muslim who had always rejected my family's religious beliefs. She then told us that she was not only ready, but eager. Say what you will about delusions, hallucinations, near death experiences, I literally do not care. When she died, it was with nothing but contentment. Is that not valuable? The values of Christianity have the power to change a fat shitheaded kid into a happy, confident adult who isn't constantly flying into violent narcissistic rage at the slightest provocation. It has the power to negate the fear of death entirely, the one thing that haunts humans constantly from the day that they are born, transforming death from a terrible curse into a natural, welcome ending. I owe everything that I have now to biblical values. That is not an exaggeration, I grew up with my parents reminding me that all of their material success was due to their embracing of forgiveness and faith, whether it was forgiving professional rivals and turning them into allies and then supporters, as my mother did, or making it a personal mission to eliminate conflict and bring peace, like my father did. The feeling of God at your back leads you to believe that you have a mission to accomplish. It's a wonderful, powerful, confidence swelling feeling that drives a man to achieve what he wishes to achieve without arrogance, and by bringing people with you, rather than using and discarding them. Christians who are self-centered, angry, and belligerent have simply not touched this feeling. The feeling on my back when I walk on the streets is one of greatness conferred on me by nothing more than the unconditional love that is the core of real Christian belief. That is why I will believe until the very end. Chonchon fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:As to "why was the concept of suffering invented and put into the universe to begin with?" I don't believe in answering that question. Any answer to that question is a justification for suffering, and that can be used to hand wave it away. Right, but having no answer is still a problem. That's why the concern is raised in the first place. The question of "why is there suffering?" isn't being asked by tendentious non-believers, it's being asked by reality. Like, so long as there is suffering and an all-powerful God, there is either justified suffering or unjustified suffering, and refusing to answer the question merely gives us the latter, it does not avoid or solve the problem. It makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I have a new avatar
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Holy poo poo I have a new avatar The shocking part is nothing in that thread is even avatar worthy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Right, but having no answer is still a problem. That's why the concern is raised in the first place. The question of "why is there suffering?" isn't being asked by tendentious non-believers, it's being asked by reality. Suffering exists so that people may have an enemy to fight, and hate exists so that you may recognize love. God does not exist to be a divine babysitter who gives you everything you want. Agency is in our own hands, as is all responsibility for every good and every evil. That's the purpose of free will. What you do with that free will to freely and unconditionally benefit the people around you determines your worth and value as a soul worth saving. Perhaps, as you might believe, I'm assigning an overly optimistic fiction to what could possibly be an oblivious and unthinking universal law (Existence of suffering), but then again its always better to be an energetic optimist than a complacent cynic. Chonchon fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Chonchon posted:Suffering exists so that people may have an enemy to fight, and hate exists so that you may recognize love. I don't need an enemy to fight and I didn't need to know hate to recognize love. So you're going to need some better reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't need an enemy to fight and I didn't need to know hate to recognize love. So you're going to need some better reasons. These reasons don't really need to be accepted by you. They are my own conclusions based on my subjective life experiences. You need to figure out your own answer and it's probably going to be unique to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Chonchon posted:Suffering exists so that people may have an enemy to fight, and hate exists so that you may recognize love. God does not exist to be a divine babysitter who gives you everything you want. Agency is in our own hands, as is all responsibility for every good and every evil. That's the purpose of free will. What you do with that free will to freely and unconditionally benefit the people around you determines your worth and value as a soul worth saving. So if you never experiences hate you're incapable of feeling love?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Chonchon posted:Suffering exists so that people may have an enemy to fight, and hate exists so that you may recognize love. God does not exist to be a divine babysitter who gives you everything you want. Agency is in our own hands, as is all responsibility for every good and every evil. That's the purpose of free will. What you do with that free will to freely and unconditionally benefit the people around you determines your worth and value as a soul worth saving. By the same token, I'd rather be an energetic cynic than a complacent optimist. I also find it interesting that you praise the transformative and healing powers of Christianity and then immediately turn around and proclaim that "lovely people" can't be Christian. I don't dispute how horrible the beliefs, practices, and ideologies you describe are, but isn't recognizing human fallibility and weakness and forgiving it an essential component of the Christian belief system? Is this not the case in your personal version of the faith? Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:So if you never experiences hate you're incapable of feeling love? Kind of an impossible question because for all we know both have existed together since the beginning of time. We don't know if you do or not. We don't know for sure because there is no world where hate doesn't exist that we know of. But the explanation warms my heart a little. Tuxedo Catfish posted:By the same token, I'd rather be an energetic cynic than a complacent optimist. I don't hate them even though they are lovely. I think everyone can and should be saved. But many choose not to and will vehemently resist to the death. That's the reality. Those people have no bearing on the certainty of my faith, that doesn't mean I don't recognize and empathize with them. Chonchon fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Would it not follow from that statement that to extinguish hatred would also extinguish love? Or, more broadly, what's so wrong with humanity not having an enemy to fight? Are we meant to be God's toy soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Chonchon posted:I don't hate them even though they are lovely. I think everyone can and should be saved. But many choose not to and will vehemently resist to the death. That's the reality. Okay, but suppose I turn to Christ with all my heart and still get it wrong. Am I only a Christian if I live up to God's example perfectly? If not perfectly, where is the threshold?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Would it not follow from that statement that to extinguish hatred would also extinguish love? Perhaps we are slave automatons designed to carry out the will of a tyrannical maker. Perhaps this is part of a grand plan infinitely larger than mankind. Perhaps there is nothing and we are struggling along doing the best we can. Doesn't matter. How do you want to go about life on earth? And I've always believed that the only requirement is to have genuine, unconditional love. No rituals, no tithes, no obeiscence and capitulation to clergymen. Just love. It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to save millions of people. It just has to be real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Chonchon posted:Kind of an impossible question because for all we know both have existed together since the beginning of time. We don't know if you do or not. We don't know for sure because there is no world where hate doesn't exist that we know of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:This seems awkward because there are human beings who definitely haven't experienced hate (babies). Arguably they also haven't experienced love, but this creates an awkward chicken/egg problem. Can you only distinguish the two after experiencing both? And if so, what makes hate bad or love good? Think about it this way. The natural order is built around war and conflict. Things eat other things to survive, and death is the constant companion of existence. The Christian ideal that I believe in is to rise above the natural order of things and leave behind conflict in favor of cooperation. Hate is a little different from conflict. It's actual malice rather than a simple need to survive. It's the desire to kill and inflict pain for the sake of making another being suffer. With our capacity for emotion, hate comes naturally to us with conflict. If you've sparred in martial arts, you might have experienced the shameful but thrilling and involuntarily sadistic rush of hammering your opponent to the ground. It's a part of is and it sucks. Even chimpanzees have been observed to torture and sadistically kill rivals from other social groups, so it's not unique to humans. Hate is inherently self centered. Love is about making a genuine sacrifice that hurts you, is painful to you, but ultimately benefits someone else. Chonchon fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Chonchon posted:Think about it this way. The natural order is built around war and conflict. Things eat other things to survive, and death is the constant companion of existence. The Christian ideal that I believe in is to rise above the natural order of things and leave behind conflict in favor of cooperation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:50
|
|