The Real problem with the god issue

What a nagging and stale question: If there is a god, why is there also evil? the real problem is not god. 'God' is just a term of convenience, a placeholder paradigm, a refugee from an ancient time that we harbor and succor because we feel sorry for it. the real problem? Treating God like a person; a person who listens to you when you're sad, who will help you with that touchdown, who will take your good friend into the bosom of heaven after dath, etc. That is why we have this interminable need for a theodicy. As if our ape's brains could encompass enternity in a word! But notice how the questions stop when god is not to spoken to, peaded with, praised for redemption (praying to god is always selfish: even when it is about another, it implies that you are among the faithful, the blssed adn saved. One needs to keep up the beseeching to stay in favor.) Does this mean life is without purpose!??! Why shoudl it. It simply means you cannot.....well..convince life to be responsive to your wishes. I for ne think the human being is deeply profound, has meaning and value beyond measure. I find it in Wordsworth, in the mystics testimony, in Debussy, in Loreena Mckinnit, in being in love. I find it in horrible suffering too. These are real.

Why not just take one of the theories of the existence of God and make an honest in-depth investigation? Take for example, the theory of God as stated in the Bible. How much time have you spent reading the textbook?

Cheers,
enegue

Why not just take one of the theories of the existence of God and make an honest in-depth investigation? Take for example, the theory of God as stated in the Bible. How much time have you spent reading the textbook?

Theories of god's existence as stated in the Bible? But that's what i am going on about: The big, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent diety who's very existence is eternity itself. I have spent enough time to read it and think about it, the Bible that is. An honest in-depth investiation is what i'm all about. Is there something I have missed?

Theories of god's existence as stated in the Bible? But that's what i am going on about: The big, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent diety who's very existence is eternity itself. I have spent enough time to read it and think about it, the Bible that is. An honest in-depth investiation is what i'm all about. Is there something I have missed?

Well, let's see. The textbook begins with man in Paradise and ends with man in Paradise. What is the difference between man at the beginning and man and the end?

Cheers,
enegue

You beg the question. It's certainly not a question about the importance assigned to events by the faithful. The issue is about assuming these events have this importance. I.e., saying sinful man becomes redeemed through Christ is exactly the assumption that gets the ax.

I for one think the human being is deeply profound, has meaning and value beyond measure. I find it in Wordsworth, in the mystics testimony, in Debussy, in Loreena Mckinnit, in being in love. I find it in horrible suffering too. These are real.

And with that, no God required! This is reality.

And with that, no God required! This is reality.

Well, I think one has to give the world its due. It shows no evidence of a personal god, one that hears your prayers and "does things." It is not a agent of any kind. But consider, and this is a little weird and requires patience: I do not know what suffering and joy are, nor can I fathom eternity, nor do I know what it means to Be (Why is there something rather than nothing?). Given that all of this emerges not from human invention (like a banking system) but from the lap of infinite Being itself, I must have pause before I start claiming, well, that it. That's WHAT, I ask? I simply do not know what suffering (and Joy!) is at all. ANd neither does anyone else. But, and this is the weird logicl move, it does figure into the nature of Being (in eternity). Being is not morally neutral in this important sense: It is the source of suffering and joy. So: Why is Being doing this? All of this disease, weakness to the elements and general fragilty; why did this simply arise out of the dumb matrix of the stuff of things? There is a mystery there that is sublime and terrible. And Happiness: Same question. Our answers are tentative place holders only. I knwo this: a meanigful response to it all is not, Oh Well! Nor is it, Oh God, I worship You. I look to the Eastern mystics.

What a nagging and stale question: If there is a god, why is there also evil? the real problem is not god. 'God' is just a term of convenience, a placeholder paradigm, a refugee from an ancient time that we harbor and succor because we feel sorry for it. the real problem?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and UNBELIEVING and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."


Almost 50% of the world's population are Abrahamic theists whose focus are on the principles of the above, i.e. fearing death, going to hell and believing God in exchange for a passport to heaven, immortality and for some, with 72 virgins as a bonus.

The real critical root cause as inferred from the various holy texts, is the primordial fear of inevitable deaths and the promise of immortality.
Once humanity can find alternative ways to modulate these fears effectively, the problem of god and all its associated issues will be gone.

No they will not be "gone." "Modulating fear" is too simply wishy washy. How about dealing with issues and learning about them rather than inventing comforting illusions? What, you think it like dealing with software? we don't want the issues to just evaporate. Consider if science took that atitude: Let's just relax about that issue of, say, star composition or the nature of black holes! Then "all associated issues will be gone. " Well, that's true enough, but along with those attendant issues will go part of who we are. Relaxing inquiry because it is convenient. Glad Galileo didn't think like this. No, we look to those distressing issues of our existence because they are there; they authenticate us, if you will, we who are thrown here like shells beached on a shore: Where do we come from? what does it mean to exist? Why are we born to suffer and die. These are the perrenial questions that are still on the table when we stop worshipping Yehweh; i.e., thinking about god as a person.

No they will not be "gone." "Modulating fear" is too simply wishy washy.

I don't blame you for saying such, as I had not listed the supporting details.
From my perspective, I say so based on the research I have done todate and "modulating fear" imo, is the critical root cause with the heaviest weight.

How about dealing with issues and learning about them rather than inventing comforting illusions?

As I had said I have applied the relevant problem solving technique and identified the critical root cause.

What, you think it like dealing with software? we don't want the issues to just evaporate. Consider if science took that atitude: Let's just relax about that issue of, say, star composition or the nature of black holes! Then "all associated issues will be gone. " Well, that's true enough, but along with those attendant issues will go part of who we are. Relaxing inquiry because it is convenient. Glad Galileo didn't think like this. No, we look to those distressing issues of our existence because they are there; they authenticate us, if you will, we who are thrown here like shells beached on a shore: Where do we come from? what does it mean to exist? Why are we born to suffer and die. These are the perrenial questions that are still on the table when we stop worshipping Yehweh; i.e., thinking about god as a person.

As there is no such thing as perfection, "all associated issues will be gone" loosely meant the major theistic-related-issues that are likely to be a hindrance to the progress of humanity will be gone.

Btw, I said, "in the future", perhaps you think it is tomorrow or the next year. I was thinking in around 100 years' time.

Why not just take one of the theories of the existence of God and make an honest in-depth investigation? Take for example, the theory of God as stated in the Bible. How much time have you spent reading the textbook?

Cheers,
enegue

Have you? I attended Bible College. I taught in a church. I studied from cover to cover at least 7 times. I studied Koine Greek to read the NT in its original language.

Then I did a complete and full scholarly research of the bible and you know where I came out. Considering your posts I can conclude that no, you never did the full scholarly research, because any true investigation without being biased can only lead to the conclusion that the bible is copied from the existing religions of the region. Then a study of religion and memes will lead you to understand the evolution of religious ideas throughout the history of man. then taking in the context of the evil of Isreal will lead you to understand the creating a religious "privilege" on committing those evils and also to raise up claims to the throne, as a thorough study of the OT will have you understand the Northen and Southern Kingdoms claims to the thrones.

I'll start you off. Compare the origin myths and flood myths or Babylon and in the epic of Gilgamesh with Genesis 1 - 9. The earliest extant copies of the Genesis graph from the J versions are dated to 950 BC. The epic of Giglamesh being dated to about the second millenia has pre-dated the earliest versions of Genesis by over 1,000 years. Apparently Genesis is copied therefrom so one can only conclude that if those religions were myth, then the copy must also be myth.

I'll start you off. Compare the origin myths and flood myths or Babylon and in the epic of Gilgamesh with Genesis 1 - 9. The earliest extant copies of the Genesis graph from the J versions are dated to 950 BC. The epic of Giglamesh being dated to about the second millenia has pre-dated the earliest versions of Genesis by over 1,000 years. Apparently Genesis is copied therefrom so one can only conclude that if those religions were myth, then the copy must also be myth.

I think you're taking Biblical accounts too literally. Scholarship suggests early Christians viewed the stories in the Bible metaphorically. It wasn't until after Augustine 'literal truth' was found. That myths from earlier sources were reused within the Bible only suggests the importance of the idea.

An educated, enlightened Christian will assume the metaphorical in Biblical accounts, realize the ancient cultural aspects that no longer hold true and follow the teachings of Jesus, which all in all is not a bad moralistic position.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 10:35 am to add the following --

Theories of god's existence as stated in the Bible? But that's what i am going on about: The big, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent diety who's very existence is eternity itself. I have spent enough time to read it and think about it, the Bible that is. An honest in-depth investiation is what i'm all about. Is there something I have missed?

When it comes to ones conception of God, the 'superman in the sky' that you suggest is pretty juvenile. God may be an it/ not an it; essence, idea transcendent to but immanent and within, underlying principle from which all things emanate; no thing; nothing but being itself; ground of all being; necessity of full self-affirmation; the perfection that must exist because non-existence is an imperfection; realizable through creative thought; beyond the limitations of scientific investigation; the optimism realized from without;

As far as the idea of latching on to religion to ease ones fears of death and extinction I don't argue that many do indeed have that, at least in the back of their minds as important. The answer, imo, is education. Nothing like a good liberal arts education to put people on the right track.

You beg the question. It's certainly not a question about the importance assigned to events by the faithful. The issue is about assuming these events have this importance. I.e., saying sinful man becomes redeemed through Christ is exactly the assumption that gets the ax.

Christ as God's incarnation can also be a metaphor for our occasional ability to be good. Or for our possibility to be good. Christ is a human sacrifice, metaphorically then, not because of the literal old superstitious propitiation of God, but because the human had to exist as mortal being so that she can be good against all the odds which finally do her in when she dies. The idea of sacrifice may be adapted to mean that we cannot entirely be good without also becoming destroyed in the process. We are all christs to a greater or lesser degree. The individual we call Jesus Christ is the paradigm of goodness and it does not matter a great deal whether or not this individual is based in historical fact.

Is this explanation too difficult?

When it comes to ones conception of God, the 'superman in the sky' that you suggest is pretty juvenile. God may be an it/ not an it; essence, idea transcendent to but immanent and within, underlying principle from which all things emanate; no thing; nothing but being itself; ground of all being; necessity of full self-affirmation; the perfection that must exist because non-existence is an imperfection; realizable through creative thought; beyond the limitations of scientific investigation; the optimism realized from without;

As far as the idea of latching on to religion to ease ones fears of death and extinction I don't argue that many do indeed have that, at least in the back of their minds as important. The answer, imo, is education. Nothing like a good liberal arts education to put people on the right track.

well then you're preaching the choir. All of those ineffibilities above, the ground of Being and the rest, I take very seriously. And that juvenile notion is exacty what is implied every time god is treated as a moral agent, which is what I said. The point is that when one is having these penetrating intuitions of the god and Being, the entailment of a responsive god, one that listens to prayer, one that loves to hear worship and praise, does not follow. And you seem to agree.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 11:25 am to add the following --

Christ as God's incarnation can also be a metaphor for our occasional ability to be good. Or for our possibility to be good. Christ is a human sacrifice, metaphorically then, not because of the literal old superstitious propitiation of God, but because the human had to exist as mortal being so that she can be good against all the odds which finally do her in when she dies. The idea of sacrifice may be adapted to mean that we cannot entirely be good without also becoming destroyed in the process. We are all christs to a greater or lesser degree. The individual we call Jesus Christ is the paradigm of goodness and it does not matter a great deal whether or not this individual is based in historical fact.

Is this explanation too difficult?

I'll do my best. Doesn't sound like you are much of a Christian, calling Christ a metaphor. But i see the idea and I like it. Funny, I just came across something similar in Don Quixote: Why did this protagonist renounce in the end all of the romantic illusions he so fiercely fought for? ANd why did Sancho Panza want the illusions to continue. It's just as you said about Christ: it had to end for the human condition is tragic, but we learn from this as did Pancho that it is the dream to lofty heights that ennobles us and makes life meaningful, or more to your point, that makes us believe in goodness.

-- Updated July 24th, 2012, 11:26 am to add the following --

Christ as God's incarnation can also be a metaphor for our occasional ability to be good. Or for our possibility to be good. Christ is a human sacrifice, metaphorically then, not because of the literal old superstitious propitiation of God, but because the human had to exist as mortal being so that she can be good against all the odds which finally do her in when she dies. The idea of sacrifice may be adapted to mean that we cannot entirely be good without also becoming destroyed in the process. We are all christs to a greater or lesser degree. The individual we call Jesus Christ is the paradigm of goodness and it does not matter a great deal whether or not this individual is based in historical fact.

Is this explanation too difficult?

I'll do my best. Doesn't sound like you are much of a Christian, calling Christ a metaphor. But i see the idea and I like it. Funny, I just came across something similar in Don Quixote: Why did this protagonist renounce in the end all of the romantic illusions he so fiercely fought for? ANd why did Sancho Panza want the illusions to continue. It's just as you said about Christ: it had to end for the human condition is tragic, but we learn from this as did Pancho that it is the dream to lofty heights that ennobles us and makes life meaningful, or more to your point, that makes us believe in goodness.

You beg the question.

That's not at all what I am doing. Begging the question relates to circular argument. For example (courtesy of The Nizkor Project:

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

It is not circular reasoning to establish an axiom: "God exists" and then investigate what a particular theory builds upon it. If the theory reflects reality, then the axiom is proven sound.

The problem you guys seem to have is, you won't read the theory as if it were a regular work of literature. You use it as a reference work to be mined for examples that support the religious position that God is a despot.

It's certainly not a question about the importance assigned to events by the faithful.

You don't see yourself as a religious zealot do you, Hearandnow? But, what would you call a person who invests time and effort searching the Bible for evidence that supports his particular religious views?

The issue is about assuming these events have this importance. I.e., saying sinful man becomes redeemed through Christ is exactly the assumption that gets the ax.

How can you possibly axe a core premise of any theory without taking the time to determine how it fits in?

Your brain is like a expert system, with a knowledge base and a facility for making inferences. If your knowledge base has fewer data points than someone else's then you are not going to be able to make the same inferences as the other person. More often than not, the accusation that someone is being illogical, is a reflection of the accuser's limited knowledge base rather than faulty inferences.

Why not take the time to look at the theory in a little more detail? We can do it together. You will expand your knowledge base and, at the same time, discover for yourself that the theory is a very good model of reality.

To that end, do you agree that, according to the theory articulated in the Bible, man started in Paradise at the beginning and finished in Paradise at the end? If you don't, I can show you. If you do, then you might give some thought to my question: What is the difference between man at the beginning of the Bible and man and the end?

@Jjpregler,
I would welcome your scholarly input on this question.

Cheers,
enegue