About a deity full of love and compassion

[Beta]

Presupposing this is what will happen, which I don't think but I'm willing to postpone my belief and assume it is for sake of discussion... would the cycle not continue again and again? Would the reign only last for, like, a millennium?

No it will not continue on.
There will be a final showdown with satan after the millennium lasting only a short time - then God moves on to the next phase of human salvation.
(no time for scripts, back later)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

None of these problems exist for the one who has a sense of God-Consciousness. All that is, IS. When the ground shakes and all are brought to death before their time, the one who has God in his or her Heart knows that this is but part of the divine play of creation, and sad and bewildered though we all are by this tragedy and disaster, it must be accepted as much as all the Good in life is.

I find this mindset abhorrent. It trivializes suffering.

There is no agreed upon definition of God, even if I intentionally meant one in that post (which I didn't).

I said that in the hopes of showing an alternative perspective on the whole "God is evil because evil things like the Earthquake in Japan happen" idea behind this thread. I meant to illustrate the absurdity and irrelevance of taking this approach to the trials and tribulations of life, not make a mystifying assertion about some imagined deity. Thanks.

It's not a matter of blaming God; it's a matter of looking for logical consistency (and therefore the potential for truth) in a belief system.

And you expect me to answer for God?....

I think I did.

No, I expect you to answer for you.

Maybe afterward, we can see which one of you is more moral, but one thing at a time.

A just question. But.

I have no belief of god and I cannot hold a non-existent entity responsible for natural disasters; or I have faith in god and believe in his acts; or I understand that nature is blind, it takes away life in the same way in which it promotes it.

With a clear mind, I may see that death is not evil after all.

Yes, but that isn't a matter of seeing death as a good thing; it's a matter of seeing death as something other than an intentional act.

If I felt that death was "freeing someone from a cage", then I wouldn't think that a person's life was worth saving. OTOH, if I feel that death is something negative but simply a natural consequence rather than an intentional creation, then I can still work to prevent it even if not getting mad at some "perpetrator" of death.

 

[Skeptisch]

The only God that is acceptable to mankind is the deistic one present in all arrangements of religion...

The deistic God is a natural God. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text.

Is the above God the one you think is present in all religion?

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
Steven Weinberg

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The deistic God is a natural God. Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text.

I disagree with that.

It's one thing to have a belief that can't be dismissed on rational grounds. It's another thing to have a belief that was arrived at rationally.

 

[Skeptisch]

I disagree with that.
It's one thing to have a belief that can't be dismissed on rational grounds. It's another thing to have a belief that was arrived at rationally.

I could not agree with you more but have a hard time to see what we disagree on.

 

[Penumbra]

Lol! Just the universe?

Yes, just the universe.

As in, her post doesn't describe a god; simply a poetic description of the physical universe that exists.

 

[Thief]

It's not a matter of blaming God; it's a matter of looking for logical consistency (and therefore the potential for truth) in a belief system.


No, I expect you to answer for you.

Now reread post #4.

 

[Penumbra]

Now reread post #4.

Rather than being full of love and compassion, the deity you describe in post #4 might as well not exist at all. It's indifferent.

And to remind of the recurring theme that Autodidact often puts forth:

Once again, I'll point out that there is one hypothesis that always fits all the data--there is no God.

 

[Willamena]

Seems to be a poetic way of describing "no god".

Just the universe.

Could I comprehensively say, "logically the universe cannot prevent the universe?"

 

[Penumbra]

Could I comprehensively say, "logically the universe cannot prevent the universe?"

I guess.

But then it's out of the scope of the thread.

 

[Willamena]

I guess.

But then it's out of the scope of the thread.

Let's assume it is within the scope.

If the universe were to go about preventing something, anything, what steps would it take?

 

[Penumbra]

Let's assume it is within the scope.

If the universe were to go about preventing something, anything, what steps would it take?

If the universe is simply the universe, it's not sentient. It just is. It's neither loving nor compassionate (or hateful and malevolent).

It doesn't take steps; but simply is. And it doesn't prevent anything; it just does or does not.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, just the universe.

As in, her post doesn't describe a god; simply a poetic description of the physical universe that exists.

To me, it doesn't look like Patty is trying to describe anything, she's attempting to explain something. The description is inherent in the explanation---in the same way that a description of penguins and their habits and habitat would be if someone were trying to explain the migratory behavior patterns of penguins---but those are incidental, or at most, devices to help illustrate a theory relating to the cause (not just the mechanics) of the behavior in question.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Ya know, I just saw this stuff on the news (I really don't do news, but I just inherited my neighbor's apt); this woman, holding her baby - we get one bowl of rice per meal, it's enough, this councilman, can't find his house, but with a smile - they told me it was earthquake-proof, and the two people that were crying? Tears of joy, they just found each other, tears of joy. So, people come to this board, to what? Worship a god of suffering? Where the people on the scene, are overcoming, the triumph of the human spirit.

And yeah, that may reflect a god of love.

 

[Koldo]

Let's assume it is within the scope.

If the universe were to go about preventing something, anything, what steps would it take?

Coincidence.

That is all there is to it.

 

[Penumbra]

To me, it doesn't look like Patty is trying to describe anything, she's attempting to explain something. The description is inherent in the explanation---in the same way that a description of penguins and their habits and habitat would be if someone were trying to explain the migratory behavior patterns of penguins---but those are incidental, or at most, devices to help illustrate a theory relating to the cause (not just the mechanics) of the behavior in question.

Yes, but the explanation is of the universe, in a seeming poetic sense. The universe has cause and effect, and we all know that.

The post is quoted again below for reference:

Well... the God that loves is, in the patheistic view, the love that is in the world. The God that "lets people die" is, in the pantheistic view, the death that is in the world. The God that considers death "a bad thing" or "a good thing" is the morality that is in the world. God isn't removed from the picture, so much as the picture shifts to become God. All these things just are, naturally, so if a logical contradiction "is" then there must be something wrong with the premises, presumably with hidden premises.

1.) God is. (This is our basic assumption which relates to any conclusion we reach, so it's good.)
2.) God is loving. (This is debatable, as in the pantheistic view, God is the love that is.)
3.) Death is. (Acceptably true. Additionally, God is the death that is and the life that is.)
4.a) If God considers death a bad thing... (This translates into "If God considers God a bad thing..."), why does God not prevent death (logically, God cannot prevent God).
4.b) If God considers death a good thing... ("If God considers God a good thing..."), why does God not prevent life (again, logically, God cannot prevent God).

My lame attempt at logic.

God is life. God is love. God is death.

Why use the word god at all? Why not just say the universe includes life, love, and death? Death is the cessation of biological functioning, so I don't see the reason for obfuscating two otherwise appropriate definitions.

 

[ellenjanuary]

God is life. God is love. God is death.

Why use the word god at all? Why not just say the universe includes life, love, and death? Death is the cessation of biological functioning, so I don't see the reason for obfuscating two otherwise appropriate definitions.

Because, perhaps, once; someone cared? Because, perhaps; once someone had a vision, of such expanse... that it could not be expressed as Love. That it could not be expressed as Life. That the only way, it could be expressed, was - as god.

And now, we can look back - ha, ha; we were stupid... - yet, how smart are we; now?

 

[Tinner]

Or, you could always just use the standard Christian refute, "god works in mysterious ways". Isn't that enough to tame your skepticism?

 

[Frank Merton]

Or, you could always just use the standard Christian refute, "god works in mysterious ways". Isn't that enough to tame your skepticism?

The same God who drowned a whole world also sent his Only Begotten Son to die on the cross to save the world. That is mysterious.

 

[Koldo]

Because, perhaps, once; someone cared? Because, perhaps; once someone had a vision, of such expanse... that it could not be expressed as Love. That it could not be expressed as Life. That the only way, it could be expressed, was - as god.

And now, we can look back - ha, ha; we were stupid... - yet, how smart are we; now?

The word "God" is terrible to describe the pantheistic view. It carries a complete different meaning than it is usually expected. One has to wonder why it is even used in the first place by pantheism.

Seriously, there should be a new term for the pantheism. The word "God" doesn't fit it.