Was that God? (Aid, punishment and test)

[Whitedragon]

This is not a topic to discuss God's existence or to refer to biblical fact. This is mainly to address the notions held today and for a while.

Often when we go through bad experiences we hear, "God is testing us," "God is punishing us." On the other hand when something good happens, then they say it is God working on our behalf and giving us aid. Although some of that may be true, it feels like it's taken to the extreme by people, who is the judge of this in anyway?

How can we know when God actually tests, punishes and help? Is this always the case, or do we ascribe some of our experience to something not relating to God - how do we make the discernment? This question is especially important considering that others' judgement can be damaging when they start deciding these in our lives or even when we tell it to ourselves.

[JackDaydream]

This is not a topic to discuss God's existence or to refer to biblical fact. This is mainly to address the notions held today and for a while.

Often when we go through bad experiences we hear, "God is testing us," "God is punishing us." On the other hand when something good happens, then they say it is God working on our behalf and giving us aid. Although some of that may be true, it feels like it's taken to the extreme by people, who is the judge of this in anyway?

How can we know when God actually tests, punishes and help? Is this always the case, or do we ascribe some of our experience to something not relating to God - how do we make the discernment? This question is especially important considering that others' judgement can be damaging when they start deciding these in our lives or even when we tell it to ourselves.

You say that the topic is not to discuss God's existence but one can only believe that God is punishing if one believes in God. Of course, independently of belief in God there may be ideas of natural justice, so that may be what you are referring to. In particular, there is the idea of karma, which is the 'idea of as you sow, so shall you reap'. It may be bound up with a sense of reward or punishment but it does really come down to the idea of the law of causation and how this may work.

The understanding of natural justice, including punishment from 'God' or karma may be seen in some ways as being a form of punishment. Some historical forms of Hinduism did view it in that way. In particular, the idea of the caste system was seen as a pattern of retributive justice from past lives. More progressive forms of Hinduism and Buddhism have not seen karma as about punishment as such, but more about the learning curve of human experiences.

However, on a deeper level it is about trying to understand where one fits into the larger plan. This may be viewed so differently in secular to spiritual perspectives. Regarding spiritual perspectives, there may be a growing development in the direction of the idea of the law of attraction, which is more about drawing in upon energies. In that perspective, there is a recognition of the role of the subconscious. That could involve a person attracting negative experiences on the basis of guilt. So, from that perspective, the whole nature of punishment from 'God' may be bound up with the whole interplay of feelings and thoughts as assumptions of belief. This would involve so much unprocessed thinking of ideas and values, including those in socialisation and in the media. It may affect people on a deep level, including what they draw to themselves in experiences in the outer world and in the interpretation of it.

[Whitedragon]

This is not a topic to discuss God's existence or to refer to biblical fact. This is mainly to address the notions held today and for a while.

Often when we go through bad experiences we hear, "God is testing us," "God is punishing us." On the other hand when something good happens, then they say it is God working on our behalf and giving us aid. Although some of that may be true, it feels like it's taken to the extreme by people, who is the judge of this in anyway?

How can we know when God actually tests, punishes and help? Is this always the case, or do we ascribe some of our experience to something not relating to God - how do we make the discernment? This question is especially important considering that others' judgement can be damaging when they start deciding these in our lives or even when we tell it to ourselves.

You say that the topic is not to discuss God's existence but one can only believe that God is punishing if one believes in God. Of course, independently of belief in God there may be ideas of natural justice, so that may be what you are referring to. In particular, there is the idea of karma, which is the 'idea of as you sow, so shall you reap'. It may be bound up with a sense of reward or punishment but it does really come down to the idea of the law of causation and how this may work.

The understanding of natural justice, including punishment from 'God' or karma may be seen in some ways as being a form of punishment. Some historical forms of Hinduism did view it in that way. In particular, the idea of the caste system was seen as a pattern of retributive justice from past lives. More progressive forms of Hinduism and Buddhism have not seen karma as about punishment as such, but more about the learning curve of human experiences.

However, on a deeper level it is about trying to understand where one fits into the larger plan. This may be viewed so differently in secular to spiritual perspectives. Regarding spiritual perspectives, there may be a growing development in the direction of the idea of the law of attraction, which is more about drawing in upon energies. In that perspective, there is a recognition of the role of the subconscious. That could involve a person attracting negative experiences on the basis of guilt. So, from that perspective, the whole nature of punishment from 'God' may be bound up with the whole interplay of feelings and thoughts as assumptions of belief. This would involve so much unprocessed thinking of ideas and values, including those in socialisation and in the media. It may affect people on a deep level, including what they draw to themselves in experiences in the outer world and in the interpretation of it.

Are you also concerned that people determine God's test and punishment, rather than God?

[JackDaydream]

To Whitedragon,
I am afraid that I don't understand your reply because you seem to be presuming that I believe in God when you said that in your outpost that the thread was not meant to involve discussing the existence of God. Also, why on earth would I be concerned about whether 'people determine God's test was punishment, rather than God unless I was some fanatical, dogmatic believer in God? My answer was an honest attempt to consider the idea of natural justice as the underlying assumption behind ideas of divine retribution and reward.

Your question frames this around the idea of God and it is unclear of your own perspective and if it is dependent on belief in God. Therefore, I think that you need to clarify what you are asking about God's punishment when you state that you are not asking about the existence of God, because what you are asking rests on that assumption itself, unless you are wishing for a more generic discussion about ideas of natural justice.

[Whitedragon]

To Whitedragon,
I am afraid that I don't understand your reply because you seem to be presuming that I believe in God when you said that in your outpost that the thread was not meant to involve discussing the existence of God. Also, why on earth would I be concerned about whether 'people determine God's test was punishment, rather than God unless I was some fanatical, dogmatic believer in God? My answer was an honest attempt to consider the idea of natural justice as the underlying assumption behind ideas of divine retribution and reward.

Your question frames this around the idea of God and it is unclear of your own perspective and if it is dependent on belief in God. Therefore, I think that you need to clarify what you are asking about God's punishment when you state that you are not asking about the existence of God, because what you are asking rests on that assumption itself, unless you are wishing for a more generic discussion about ideas of natural justice.

Thanks for the reply,

I will check the opening post again.

[JackDaydream]

To Whitedragon,
I am not sure if you are planning to revise your question a little because what your outpost seems to involve is many contradictions in many people's thinking which may involve the nature of uncertainty itself. For example, I know of many people who believe in God but in the face of 'evil' query this and there is already a large thread on this already, which may be of interest for you to read in the philosophy of religion section. Also, I know many people who claim not to believe in God who have admitted that in times of difficulties in life they begin praying. It may all involve how experiences and philosophy are so complex.

Philosophy may be about rational attempts to answer questions but life experiences, especially the harshest ones, may be of key importance for moderating them and gaining clarity of thought. I have found this especially important when others make comments about God's punishment because it is uncertain to what extent a person who makes such a remark has thought through the full implications of the idea. I hope that this is helpful for your thinking and further development of your thread.

[Whitedragon]

To Whitedragon,
I am not sure if you are planning to revise your question a little because what your outpost seems to involve is many contradictions in many people's thinking which may involve the nature of uncertainty itself. For example, I know of many people who believe in God but in the face of 'evil' query this and there is already a large thread on this already, which may be of interest for you to read in the philosophy of religion section. Also, I know many people who claim not to believe in God who have admitted that in times of difficulties in life they begin praying. It may all involve how experiences and philosophy are so complex.

Philosophy may be about rational attempts to answer questions but life experiences, especially the harshest ones, may be of key importance for moderating them and gaining clarity of thought. I have found this especially important when others make comments about God's punishment because it is uncertain to what extent a person who makes such a remark has thought through the full implications of the idea. I hope that this is helpful for your thinking and further development of your thread.

Thank you, yes,

Other believers are hars and afford too much liberty in their judgement of others' lot. I'm opting for a new breakthrough in this and let something else decide it, as it hampers faith rather than promoting it. What are we supposed to do in anyway with something we can't control, it seems it places the focus in the wrong place?

Natural justice is a safer alternative, as you suggest. With these two options both on the table, can it solve at least one atheist problem where we say it's natural justice first before God, like mental illness first before exorcism?

As for the question about the opening post, I think we can talk about God if his existence is not the focus?

[The Beast]

Hi. This is my POV.
If I go to a restaurant of a renowned chef, he will cook a delicious meal and his reward is money. If a mother cooks a meal and love is involved, then the reward is the mantra of love or the implied silence of her look if she is a saint. Her mantra might be what she teaches. There is a mantra for every mental disease (an exorcism) as given by the three laws of human behavior or the four psychological laws of power (and more). IMO Behaviors as cyclical correlating with the sane as needs but with different connectivity if odd. It is a test if we judge it as such. It is justice whatever comes since we only know the half of it. Mostly it is the challenge of living with the belief.

[JackDaydream]

To Whitedragon,
I am not sure if you are planning to revise your question a little because what your outpost seems to involve is many contradictions in many people's thinking which may involve the nature of uncertainty itself. For example, I know of many people who believe in God but in the face of 'evil' query this and there is already a large thread on this already, which may be of interest for you to read in the philosophy of religion section. Also, I know many people who claim not to believe in God who have admitted that in times of difficulties in life they begin praying. It may all involve how experiences and philosophy are so complex.

Philosophy may be about rational attempts to answer questions but life experiences, especially the harshest ones, may be of key importance for moderating them and gaining clarity of thought. I have found this especially important when others make comments about God's punishment because it is uncertain to what extent a person who makes such a remark has thought through the full implications of the idea. I hope that this is helpful for your thinking and further development of your thread.

Thank you, yes,

Other believers are hars and afford too much liberty in their judgement of others' lot. I'm opting for a new breakthrough in this and let something else decide it, as it hampers faith rather than promoting it. What are we supposed to do in anyway with something we can't control, it seems it places the focus in the wrong place?

Natural justice is a safer alternative, as you suggest. With these two options both on the table, can it solve at least one atheist problem where we say it's natural justice first before God, like mental illness first before exorcism?

As for the question about the opening post, I think we can talk about God if his existence is not the focus?

I think your latest post makes your own position clearer. My own position is that difficulties have made me question a lot and in some ways it is not just about the existence of God, which can end up going round in circles. At one point, when I was a student I did wonder what was going on as if some divine force was punishing me. I ended up taking 12 caffeine tablets. It wasn't a suicide attempt but it was a bit risky. It made me extremely restless and I ended up walking around the High Street, ruminating, in the middle of the night.

Now, I would say that whether life is viewed as being a matter of God or nature, I still feel overwhelmed by circumstances at times. However, I don't feel punished as such but see difficulties as a potential sources for learning. If life was too easy it might be that there was not much learning, although it does seem that some people have more fortunes or misfortunes than others.

The Biblical story of Job is interesting in relation to your question and if you haven't read it already, think that you may find it useful for reflection. That is because it involves the character, Job, reflecting on his suffering and thinking about whether he is being punished. It is an interesting reflection on being miserable and wondering about why one is going through suffering.

[Whitedragon]

Hi. This is my POV.
If I go to a restaurant of a renowned chef, he will cook a delicious meal and his reward is money. If a mother cooks a meal and love is involved, then the reward is the mantra of love or the implied silence of her look if she is a saint. Her mantra might be what she teaches. There is a mantra for every mental disease (an exorcism) as given by the three laws of human behavior or the four psychological laws of power (and more). IMO Behaviors as cyclical correlating with the sane as needs but with different connectivity if odd. It is a test if we judge it as such. It is justice whatever comes since we only know the half of it. Mostly it is the challenge of living with the belief.

I believe in dark matter.

[Whitedragon]

To Whitedragon,
I am not sure if you are planning to revise your question a little because what your outpost seems to involve is many contradictions in many people's thinking which may involve the nature of uncertainty itself. For example, I know of many people who believe in God but in the face of 'evil' query this and there is already a large thread on this already, which may be of interest for you to read in the philosophy of religion section. Also, I know many people who claim not to believe in God who have admitted that in times of difficulties in life they begin praying. It may all involve how experiences and philosophy are so complex.

Philosophy may be about rational attempts to answer questions but life experiences, especially the harshest ones, may be of key importance for moderating them and gaining clarity of thought. I have found this especially important when others make comments about God's punishment because it is uncertain to what extent a person who makes such a remark has thought through the full implications of the idea. I hope that this is helpful for your thinking and further development of your thread.

Thank you, yes,

Other believers are hars and afford too much liberty in their judgement of others' lot. I'm opting for a new breakthrough in this and let something else decide it, as it hampers faith rather than promoting it. What are we supposed to do in anyway with something we can't control, it seems it places the focus in the wrong place?

Natural justice is a safer alternative, as you suggest. With these two options both on the table, can it solve at least one atheist problem where we say it's natural justice first before God, like mental illness first before exorcism?

As for the question about the opening post, I think we can talk about God if his existence is not the focus?

I think your latest post makes your own position clearer. My own position is that difficulties have made me question a lot and in some ways it is not just about the existence of God, which can end up going round in circles. At one point, when I was a student I did wonder what was going on as if some divine force was punishing me. I ended up taking 12 caffeine tablets. It wasn't a suicide attempt but it was a bit risky. It made me extremely restless and I ended up walking around the High Street, ruminating, in the middle of the night.

Now, I would say that whether life is viewed as being a matter of God or nature, I still feel overwhelmed by circumstances at times. However, I don't feel punished as such but see difficulties as a potential sources for learning. If life was too easy it might be that there was not much learning, although it does seem that some people have more fortunes or misfortunes than others.

The Biblical story of Job is interesting in relation to your question and if you haven't read it already, think that you may find it useful for reflection. That is because it involves the character, Job, reflecting on his suffering and thinking about whether he is being punished. It is an interesting reflection on being miserable and wondering about why one is going through suffering.

Thanks for sharing,

Yes, Job perfectly illustrates our assumptions on these, curiously Satan in the story seems more like your natural justice than we should take him as a person. Do you think if we paint Satan a natural force, (Satan vs HaSatan), that many scriptures would become clearer?

I can also, like you, attest to the assumption of God's punishment or so on me. I think biblical policing methods of our ethics was never a good tool as it directly clashes with psychology practice, in that guilt harmonises us more with errors and its continuity in our lives.

[JackDaydream]

To Whitedragon,
I am not sure if you are planning to revise your question a little because what your outpost seems to involve is many contradictions in many people's thinking which may involve the nature of uncertainty itself. For example, I know of many people who believe in God but in the face of 'evil' query this and there is already a large thread on this already, which may be of interest for you to read in the philosophy of religion section. Also, I know many people who claim not to believe in God who have admitted that in times of difficulties in life they begin praying. It may all involve how experiences and philosophy are so complex.

Philosophy may be about rational attempts to answer questions but life experiences, especially the harshest ones, may be of key importance for moderating them and gaining clarity of thought. I have found this especially important when others make comments about God's punishment because it is uncertain to what extent a person who makes such a remark has thought through the full implications of the idea. I hope that this is helpful for your thinking and further development of your thread.

Thank you, yes,

Other believers are hars and afford too much liberty in their judgement of others' lot. I'm opting for a new breakthrough in this and let something else decide it, as it hampers faith rather than promoting it. What are we supposed to do in anyway with something we can't control, it seems it places the focus in the wrong place?

Natural justice is a safer alternative, as you suggest. With these two options both on the table, can it solve at least one atheist problem where we say it's natural justice first before God, like mental illness first before exorcism?

As for the question about the opening post, I think we can talk about God if his existence is not the focus?

I think your latest post makes your own position clearer. My own position is that difficulties have made me question a lot and in some ways it is not just about the existence of God, which can end up going round in circles. At one point, when I was a student I did wonder what was going on as if some divine force was punishing me. I ended up taking 12 caffeine tablets. It wasn't a suicide attempt but it was a bit risky. It made me extremely restless and I ended up walking around the High Street, ruminating, in the middle of the night.

Now, I would say that whether life is viewed as being a matter of God or nature, I still feel overwhelmed by circumstances at times. However, I don't feel punished as such but see difficulties as a potential sources for learning. If life was too easy it might be that there was not much learning, although it does seem that some people have more fortunes or misfortunes than others.

The Biblical story of Job is interesting in relation to your question and if you haven't read it already, think that you may find it useful for reflection. That is because it involves the character, Job, reflecting on his suffering and thinking about whether he is being punished. It is an interesting reflection on being miserable and wondering about why one is going through suffering.

Thanks for sharing,

Yes, Job perfectly illustrates our assumptions on these, curiously Satan in the story seems more like your natural justice than we should take him as a person. Do you think if we paint Satan a natural force, (Satan vs HaSatan), that many scriptures would become clearer?

I can also, like you, attest to the assumption of God's punishment or so on me. I think biblical policing methods of our ethics was never a good tool as it directly clashes with psychology practice, in that guilt harmonises us more with errors and its continuity in our lives.

As I haven't interacted with you much in the past, you are probably not aware that I am extremely interested in Jung and he looks at how the figure of Satan stands in the Biblical drama. He looks at this in his, 'Answer to Job', and it was based on reading that book that I read the Biblical book of Job. His book looks at the Biblical Job as a starting point for thinking about the dark side of human nature. He draws upon ideas within various traditions from Gnòsticism, alchemy and Taoism to think about what the dark side of God, sometimes known as Abraxis, represents. Even though he sees the dangerous potential of human destructiveness which may be unleashed, he sees evil as being a necessary opposition, like the opposition of the yin and yang within the larger scheme of duality.

[Agent Smyth]

A superb question in me humble opinion. There should be a good answer buried deep in all this noise. Before I forget, danke for bringing this issue to my attention. So simple, no?

[Whitedragon]

Thank you, yes,

Other believers are hars and afford too much liberty in their judgement of others' lot. I'm opting for a new breakthrough in this and let something else decide it, as it hampers faith rather than promoting it. What are we supposed to do in anyway with something we can't control, it seems it places the focus in the wrong place?

Natural justice is a safer alternative, as you suggest. With these two options both on the table, can it solve at least one atheist problem where we say it's natural justice first before God, like mental illness first before exorcism?

As for the question about the opening post, I think we can talk about God if his existence is not the focus?

I think your latest post makes your own position clearer. My own position is that difficulties have made me question a lot and in some ways it is not just about the existence of God, which can end up going round in circles. At one point, when I was a student I did wonder what was going on as if some divine force was punishing me. I ended up taking 12 caffeine tablets. It wasn't a suicide attempt but it was a bit risky. It made me extremely restless and I ended up walking around the High Street, ruminating, in the middle of the night.

Now, I would say that whether life is viewed as being a matter of God or nature, I still feel overwhelmed by circumstances at times. However, I don't feel punished as such but see difficulties as a potential sources for learning. If life was too easy it might be that there was not much learning, although it does seem that some people have more fortunes or misfortunes than others.

The Biblical story of Job is interesting in relation to your question and if you haven't read it already, think that you may find it useful for reflection. That is because it involves the character, Job, reflecting on his suffering and thinking about whether he is being punished. It is an interesting reflection on being miserable and wondering about why one is going through suffering.

Thanks for sharing,

Yes, Job perfectly illustrates our assumptions on these, curiously Satan in the story seems more like your natural justice than we should take him as a person. Do you think if we paint Satan a natural force, (Satan vs HaSatan), that many scriptures would become clearer?

I can also, like you, attest to the assumption of God's punishment or so on me. I think biblical policing methods of our ethics was never a good tool as it directly clashes with psychology practice, in that guilt harmonises us more with errors and its continuity in our lives.

As I haven't interacted with you much in the past, you are probably not aware that I am extremely interested in Jung and he looks at how the figure of Satan stands in the Biblical drama. He looks at this in his, 'Answer to Job', and it was based on reading that book that I read the Biblical book of Job. His book looks at the Biblical Job as a starting point for thinking about the dark side of human nature. He draws upon ideas within various traditions from Gnòsticism, alchemy and Taoism to think about what the dark side of God, sometimes known as Abraxis, represents. Even though he sees the dangerous potential of human destructiveness which may be unleashed, he sees evil as being a necessary opposition, like the opposition of the yin and yang within the larger scheme of duality.

I'm glad to have found a word, as abraxis, to this idea, I think The old King James in Isaiah 45:7 is blatant in that, where the Hebrew word for evil, as English, both allows for calamity or actual evil - Ra.

"Darkness" from my personal work is a remnant of allowed deviance in evolution, both for humans and all other things in that we are co-creators along with the rest of cosmology and the first formation of particles during the big bang. In other words everything chose this reality and continues in natural selection, which was bard from ultimate destruction, which I coin pre-reactionals, introduced by a greater consciouness.

In other words we both chose the reality and are subsisted by this consciouness that allowed deviance in evolution, which other wise would be absolute determinism.

What we call God did not have to create the universe to have access to it, ergo the universe always existed to God but not to itself. In other words God gave freedom to evolution, but not boundless freedom, as it would hail it's destruction.

Therfore darkness is contingent in that all is it's co-creator and darkness is not a necessary reality in that it was not created by God directly, but by our and natures interactions as evolution continues.

[The Beast]

Hi. This is my POV.
If I go to a restaurant of a renowned chef, he will cook a delicious meal and his reward is money. If a mother cooks a meal and love is involved, then the reward is the mantra of love or the implied silence of her look if she is a saint. Her mantra might be what she teaches. There is a mantra for every mental disease (an exorcism) as given by the three laws of human behavior or the four psychological laws of power (and more). IMO Behaviors as cyclical correlating with the sane as needs but with different connectivity if odd. It is a test if we judge it as such. It is justice whatever comes since we only know the half of it. Mostly it is the challenge of living with the belief.

I believe in dark matter.

I test reality
I could address a belief of cosmological dark matter as based on the observations by others of it. I seen it in pictures as dark clouds involving galaxies. According to the paradigm, it is 27% of the Universe. So lambda (dark matter) is in the majority that is even correlated by observations of the JADES and by the math associated. In the signific function, lambda might be correlated with the less quantity of regular matter in the unconscious to a projection upon the Ego. The act of discrimination (dark matter) equals the integrated contents of parts of the ego and/or part of the ego personality. Lambda might succeed in fixing reasonable boundaries granting the figures of the unconscious (the self, anima, animus and shadow) relative autonomy and reality. For example: we might correlate Whitedragon with animus (hostility) and Darkdragon with anima (soul) and their autonomy as boundaries to the shadow… or the inverse which may cause inflation and the integration of the shadow as the self. Reality.