It's God's Fault!

[Alien826]

Just a note @Heyo - this is a discussion not a debate.

Before I join in, if I do, please could you give me some guidelines on how to distinguish debate from discussion? They seem very similar to me. Maybe debate has a more formal structure. In any case both allow disagreement and the presentation of reasons to support one's position, don't they? Is it about being polite and saying "in my opinion" a lot?

Serious question, I don't want to overstep any bounds.

 

[sun rise]

If I look at today's 21st century, I would say we are no different that in WW1 or WW2. The only difference is that we are more lethal.

When working for a big corporation where the CEO announced a dramatic change, we used to remark that the pilot can change the ship's direction but with very large ships it takes time and perseverance to see the change become obvious. To extend that image, when God in human form, the Christ, Avatar takes the suffering of the world on His shoulders, the change He brought does not manifest immediately.

To switch metaphors, there is a difference between the dead of winter and the time when a few faint signs of spring occur. It's still winter throughout that time but those who look carefully can see buds start appearing, the days getting slowly longer and other subtle hints of spring are observable.

Winter to me is what has been called the "man made world". To me the changes between that world which I experienced growing up in the 1950's and 60's and the faint signs of the "God made world" are apparent though subtle, sometimes transient and being resisted by human negativity. And progress is not a straight line; it's only when looking at the longer term that the change can be noted.

Many have looked at this. For example https://www.cato.org/commentary/things-are-getting-better-really-they-are# Good News, the World Is Getting Better

One final thought. I see that people's relationship with the Divine in the God made world will be different than what it has been in the past. But for the new to be realized the old must pass away.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just a note @Heyo - this is a discussion not a debate.

Begging your pardon, but I'm not sure how it's possible to discuss this topic and not debate, especially when qualifying the subject matter with "I'm sure others will disagree."

I'm not sure it's entire fair to the "others" to state they cannot debate. To me, it's politely saying, "if you disagree with my premise, shut up and stay the heck out of my thread."

 

[Windwalker]

As a premise, I look at precedent when addressing the issue within the scope of my signature:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

The word “dominion” has an understanding of rulership and control as if God just said, “It is yours to do as you wish”. It was without defect.

From other Biblical authors, their understanding of this creation story is to say that man was given the responsibility over these creations as a "steward" to tend to the Garden that God created and placed before him.

I know there are plenty who read "dominion", as to dominate and exploit. But I do not believe that was the intended meaning of the authors. Stewardship and responsibility was. Respect the balance that God created, not drain it dry to make money for yourselves.

Then Adam decided to follow a different spirit and the death cycle began over man’s dominion.

Yes. This is one of the beauties of the Genesis story. It captures this dichotomy of mankind. It's the struggle between the spiritual will, and the will of the flesh or the egoic, self-seeking will. If the whole Bible could be summed up, the whole battle between "good and evil", or "God and the devil", it is just this. The spiritual path, versus the egoic path.

When humans act out of greed and self-interest, they exploit one another, harming and destroying others in the process of unchecked self-interests. When humans act out of Love, or the spiritual path, then they take others as extensions of themselves to care for and protect. That same thing then applies to the environment, or the creation itself. They act as wise stewards, as opposed to greedy consumers for themselves only.

In my worldview, I would say God will do something to prevent mankind’s and his ownership of the world from destroying themselves. Matt 24:22 King James Bible And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

I take a different view of this. I do not believe something outside of ourselves will come and save us from ourselves. But I do believe that that "something" will rise up from within us, and enable us to possibly heal and begin anew.

"God's kingdom" in other words, does not come from outside of us with force, but rather arises from within through our participation within it. It won't happen, if we ourselves are not changed within first, and start following that other path of respect and stewardship, instead of that path of greed and exploitative self-interests only.

So, IMV, it’s man’s fault. I'm sure others will disagree.

I see it as a choice of how we will chose to act in the Garden. The story of the Garden of Eden, is our story continuing on every day, in my view.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Humanity has to grow up and take responsibility. Imagining that daddy will fix things for us is infantile and won't help us.

Yup. We just cannot assume anyone but us is going to fix it. Tragically though too many believe in this invisible skydaddy who's going to take care of us. It's irresponsible and can easily be the death of us all.
We need to work towards being more like Kirk who declared to the Olympians themselves that we have outgrown our need of deities like a child outgrows the need of parents.

 

[F1fan]

Why did God write this post?

Are you referring to my post, or your own? A God would know.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you referring to my post, or your own? A God would know.

Both, evidently.

 

[F1fan]

Humans don't have ethics, supposedly.

A competent creator would have known it made humans without ethics, so the question is why it did that if it wanted outcomes that require humans being ethical.

It's like deliberately creating an unreliable car and then blaming the car when it breaks down.

That's why we need salvation. (I don't agree; just being the messenger.)

And this means that salvation was part of the plan from the start, unless God is careless and makes mistakes that he has to solve one way or another. In either event the God is responsble.

 

[F1fan]

Both, evidently.

I'm sure Kenny has scripture that will answer this. Like 5% scripture, 95% heavy dose of interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But precedent is that there was no defect (in my worldview)

So God did not know what he was doing when he made man? The problem with an omniscient omnipotent creator is that he had to know of any flaws in his work, and he had to personally invent the new flaws that he added. The Garden of Eden myth has God as the "bad guy" if one fully understands it,.

 

[F1fan]

So God did not know what he was doing when he made man? The problem with an omniscient omnipotent creator is that he had to know of any flaws in his work, and he had to personally invent the new flaws that he added. The Garden of Eden myth has God as the "bad guy" if one fully understands it,.

The only alternative is a God that plays dice with the universe. Sorry Einstein.

The Creator CAN'T know what it's doing to NOT be held accountable.

 

[Kenny]

You wrote, "it’s man’s fault. I'm sure others will disagree" and I said that no atheist will disagree with you. Two things: you have said that you don't want debate, and now you're issuing a contradictory position, although to rise to the level of debate, you'd need to defend the position (rebuttal, or counterargument) rather than merely contradict it. Dissent without argument is useless. It's simply the expression of an undefended opinion.

I'm sorry... maybe I didn't express myself correctly and succinctly

Yes, they would and do.

yes... they would agree with me - that it is man's fault..

Still, rejecting the claim that such a thing exists, he isn't wondering whether to blame gods or man.

Here is where we would be at an impasse. No debate necessary.

 

[Kenny]

Why did God create toxic chemicals? Why did God make them useful to humans that will endanger us? Why did God create so many humans without adequate ethics?

This is where I would say that it isn't that God didn't create humans without ethics. Even atheists will say that they have ethics. It would be when we decide not to follow the ethics (free will).

 

[Kenny]

So God did not know what he was doing when he made man? The problem with an omniscient omnipotent creator is that he had to know of any flaws in his work, and he had to personally invent the new flaws that he added. The Garden of Eden myth has God as the "bad guy" if one fully understands it,.

This is the substance I was trying to express. People don't want to take responsibility.

So, assume we have a person that is way overweight, eats a ton of sugar, smokes cigarettes and drinks excessive alcohol and then say "Didn't God know what He was doing"? Shouldn't we be saying "Didn't this man know what he was doing when he got diabetes and cancer?

So man pollutes his body and this world and then some express why a God of love would do such a thing when it was the man that did it.

 

[Kenny]

Who has been "blaming god", exactly?

Maybe here?
#31

 

[Kenny]

Before I join in, if I do, please could you give me some guidelines on how to distinguish debate from discussion? They seem very similar to me. Maybe debate has a more formal structure. In any case both allow disagreement and the presentation of reasons to support one's position, don't they? Is it about being polite and saying "in my opinion" a lot?

Serious question, I don't want to overstep any bounds.

That is a good question.

Perhaps the difference is discussion is more about presenting points verses demeaning the person position or attacking?

Maybe we could start with what we can agree on? Heyo started very well when he agreed with one point and disagreed with the other?

One site says:

"When it comes to debate and discussion, the difference breaks down into openness of the participants.

Debaters aren’t there to be open, they are there to win.

By contrast, people participating in a discussion are usually open to one another’s opinions, and there is a chance the opinions can be changed in a discussion. This is not the case for debates."

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the substance I was trying to express. People don't want to take responsibility.

So, assume we have a person that is way overweight, eats a ton of sugar, smokes cigarettes and drinks excessive alcohol and then say "Didn't God know what He was doing"? Shouldn't we be saying "Didn't this man know what he was doing when he got diabetes and cancer?

So man pollutes his body and this world and then some express why a God of love would do such a thing when it was the man that did it.

No, people are willing to take responsibility. The myth that you mentioned takes responsibility away from them. Atheists do not believe that myth. They know that they are responsible for their own wrong doings when they make them.

 

[idea]

But will they?

If I look at today's 21st century, I would say we are no different that in WW1 or WW2. The only difference is that we are more lethal.

more lethal? try again.

The exact number of deaths in the The Russian-Ukrainian War is difficult to determine due to differing estimates from various sources and the ongoing nature of the conflict. As of 2021, it is estimated that the conflict has resulted in at least 13,000 deaths.

World War II, on the other hand, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945 and resulted in an estimated 70 million deaths worldwide, including both military and civilian casualties. The Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a part at the time, suffered the highest number of casualties of any country in the war, with an estimated 27 million deaths.

In terms of raw numbers, the death toll in the Russian-Ukrainian War is significantly lower than that of World War II.

 

[sun rise]

Begging your pardon, but I'm not sure how it's possible to discuss this topic and not debate, especially when qualifying the subject matter with "I'm sure others will disagree."

I'm not sure it's entire fair to the "others" to state they cannot debate. To me, it's politely saying, "if you disagree with my premise, shut up and stay the heck out of my thread."

How is this thread different from any other thread in a discuss but don't debate area? It seems to me that if we can't discuss it here then nothing can be discussed without debating.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How is this thread different from any other thread in a discuss but don't debate area? It seems to me that if we can't discuss it here then nothing can be discussed without debating.

As I said, the qualifier.

Also, the OP sets up a scenario where one can either choose God's fault or man's fault and argue the rationale behind the choice.