Communicating Annuls Perfection

[Simon Anders]

well you dressed it up as a proof there

I did say 'understandably' in my explanation above.

I think you are reacting, understandably, to what I am saying as if it were an attempt at proof. My intention is to raise a possibility by reminding people of their experiences or the experiences of others they know in relation to fathers and leaders IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion of God.

(corrected sp) I admitted that it was understandable that you might take is as a proof, then explained my intentions.

so why suggest that bringing in issues for determining the validity of proof is not valid?

I haven't. However I am making choices given how I think people change and do not change their views.

I'm not sure what you mean?
with you it cannot go on for eternity?

Because I would disengage. I hope you would too, but that's your business.

so you have direct perception (ie a claim) that god is fallible and methodology (a means others can apply to also determine the claim)?

Given our experience of the world, the claim that God is perfect and has made no mistakes and is loving has the onus of proof. That said, I could propose a methodology and if someone is genuinely interested they can PM me.

 

[Simon Anders]

The whole fallibility of God issue has always been rather abstract to me, though. The only way I can see it was pertinent in my life was in scenarios like these where the theist would argue to the effect of: "I am a theist. I know God. God is infallible. Therefore, I am infallible, too. If I tell you, Greenberg, that you are bad and unworthy person, then this is infallibly true and you are obligated to believe it and do as I tell you."

Yes, I think that is the pattern, at least often, with many people.

As far as the fallibility issue...
for me it is very similar to developing or regaining trust in other relationships.

If something goes wrong or something terrible is done by someone and they maintain a position of 'I have done nothing wrong' or 'I am perfect' it puts a damper on the relationship.

Also any pretending 'it REALLY has been OK' can also be a relationship breaker if it hasn't been OK.

Of course many religions have explanations for the problem of evil and so on. I have not found these convincing. I have also not found the explanations that, IMO, teach me to blame myself - though not in so many words, of course. That kind of open blame is generally left to the Abrahamic religions.

But this last paragraph is tangential to the point I wanted to focus on. Primarily in this paragraph I wanted to make it clear that I am aware of other explanations of 'past or 'apparent' problems and wrongs'.

Very few people have the courage to raise the idea that God is evil. Or acknowledge that fear. So I commend you for that openness and self-awareness. At the very least I would like to add to the spectrum of possibilties about God for others: good, evil, neutral +
evolving and fallible.

This last might seem a possible fit for people and something to be explored. If not, not, obviously.

 

[lightgigantic]

He should. To communicate or reiterate his moral standards to us is an admission that He didn't get us right.

Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?

Of course one can say He may have deliberately wanted us to not meet his level of morality

I'm not sure why one would say that

The easiest thing to say is that God does not know the future.

actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue

So much for prophesy and prediction if that's the case. So much for omiscience. So much for omnipotence. So much for any religious manuscript.

assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue ...

One reason a God might not communicate with us in dialogue form is because there are questions He can't answer or the answer requires a lie. One in particular might be "Why am I here?".

How does a perfect God answer that question? First off, He would know its going to be asked. Secondly it would be impossible for Him to make it sound sensible.

How does anyone or any god explain that He created something knowing full well how it will all play out. It's as nonsensical as it can get. God's best alternative would be to not communicate.

its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action

Hey, I'm an atheist because I see more reason not to be the other choice. Half the time when I make an argument there are elements in my words that may support god's existence. It is a result of something I've always maintained but only after considerable reflection. God makes more sense if you believe He simply wants nothing to do with us, be invisible, deaf, mute and non interfering. Absolute non communicative is perfection.

lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with

All we are left with is speculation which is evident in spades in the religion subforum. I do it along with everyone else.

actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?

No, unless you're suggesting that only He does the talking. In that case all praying is useless. God endowed us with the ability to communicate but not to Him, is that what you are saying

I'm not sure why one would say that

You 'd question God's motives? Is this the standard free will cop out?

actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue

Ok, we're faulty. If we're faulty then..... (more standard fare)

assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue

No god? or Just a bunch of whacky religious philosophy?

its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action

Wrong, I could be silent and nothing happens to the kid. Anyway you`re also implying God might not know either.

lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with

Dont think so because they would still have to believe in a god, not going to happen.

actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you

I did say we all do it, didn`t I

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic Episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Of course there is no possibility of us having the communication difficulty, is there?
”
No, unless you're suggesting that only He does the talking.

so you just assume at the onset that your skills of reception are just perfect?

In that case all praying is useless.

or alternatively, the prayers of a dysfunctional person are useless

God endowed us with the ability to communicate but not to Him, is that what you are saying

I am saying that this world offers the unique facility of tuning out god - in the spiritual world there is no option but to be totally socialized around god

“
I'm not sure why one would say that
”
You 'd question God's motives? Is this the standard free will cop out?

I mean to say I am not sure why that is the obvious default position of intelligent opinion.

“
actually the easiest thing is if there is a communication issue there are two aspects to investigation - one is to examine the speaker/sender and the other is to examine the receiver - it doesn't matter whether you are examining a faulty satellite dish or an interpersonal communication issue
”
Ok, we're faulty. If we're faulty then..... (more standard fare)

if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries.

“
assuming your premises haven't overlooked an important issue
”
No god? or Just a bunch of whacky religious philosophy?

even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas

“
its not clear why knowledge inhibits communication.

I mean if you see a child begin to do something dangerous (meaning you know what the result is), silence is not the usual course of action
”
Wrong, I could be silent and nothing happens to the kid.

so you think you could be a parent and keep your trap shut for 21 years?

Anyway you`re also implying God might not know either.

why?

“
lol
I'm sure that's a type of god most atheists would be most comfortable with
”
Dont think so because they would still have to believe in a god, not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
what is the practical difference between a god that does absolutely nothing and has no qualities and a false notion of god?

“
actually I would argue that you began with speculation - at least if there is a practical communication issue, most professionals will apply themselves quite differently to you
”
I did say we all do it, didn`t I

discipline of knowledge and practice puts an end to it however

 

[greenberg]

Yes, I think that is the pattern, at least often, with many people.

As far as the fallibility issue...
for me it is very similar to developing or regaining trust in other relationships.

If something goes wrong or something terrible is done by someone and they maintain a position of 'I have done nothing wrong' or 'I am perfect' it puts a damper on the relationship.

Also any pretending 'it REALLY has been OK' can also be a relationship breaker if it hasn't been OK.

I see, and I can relate. I think there are two main factors at work when it comes to relationships and everything that comes with them:

One, taking into account that an observed result might have several causes and that all causes might not be known. When things go wrong between people, or otherwise, this could be exclusively one person's fault, or both people's, or neither. But generally, people tend to think in terms of one cause - one effect; so when they see that something is wrong, they look for one possible cause - and no further. I think this one cause - one effect reasoning is a main source of the popularity of blaming (and not so much the desire to absolve oneself from responsibility). But once one considers the complexity of a situation, it becomes impossible to assign exclusive blame.

Two, having a set of clearcut relationship criteria in place even before one begins a relationship. Practically, this can be hard to live by, other than that we break up all of our old intimate social ties, go into seclusion to figure out a set of relationship criteria, and then begin anew, with new people.
It's important that one knows in advance what one is willing to settle for and what not. Otherwise, relationships are a lot of work and the constant compromising of one's standards or trying to figure them out on the go can be very very straining.

How these two factors relate to fallibility:

One, when considering what God might be like, we have to bear in mind that several causes might be at work that make us think about God one way or another. We need to investigate those causes - how much they actually have to do with God, how much they have to do with our particular perceptions of God, life, ourselves, other people, and even the food we eat or the place we live at.

Two, having a set of relationship criteria makes communication and interaction a lot easier for oneself (and the other person). It's when we are not in the clear about what we want from others and what we are willing to give that many relationship troubles begin. With a set of relationship criteria, we are able to accomodate for the other person's actual or perceived fallibility; we either break up with them, reformulate the relationship, or are ready to forgive them their faults. Without a set of criteria, we are left to wondering whether we should forgive them or not, whether we should break up with them or not etc.
I think similar applies, at least initially, to our relationship with God as well.

 

[Simon Anders]

How these two factors relate to fallibility:

One, when considering what God might be like, we have to bear in mind that several causes might be at work that make us think about God one way or another. We need to investigate those causes - how much they actually have to do with God, how much they have to do with our particular perceptions of God, life, ourselves, other people, and even the food we eat or the place we live at.

certainly and one must do the best one can to work through the various filters and distortions one can just as one would in human to human or other relationships.

Two, having a set of relationship criteria makes communication and interaction a lot easier for oneself (and the other person). It's when we are not in the clear about what we want from others and what we are willing to give that many relationship troubles begin. With a set of relationship criteria, we are able to accomodate for the other person's actual or perceived fallibility; we either break up with them, reformulate the relationship, or are ready to forgive them their faults. Without a set of criteria, we are left to wondering whether we should forgive them or not, whether we should break up with them or not etc.
I think similar applies, at least initially, to our relationship with God as well

Given the context, the notion of coming up with one's own relationship criteria is taking quite a stand. Most monotheists would say that you must, by definition, unconditionally surrender to the terms of God. Your needs and desires must be set aside. Notions of hell will come rapidly into many conversations right around here. (free will being something it is great to have but not to use, much as freedom of speech is often viewed by conservatives)

 

[greenberg]

Given the context, the notion of coming up with one's own relationship criteria is taking quite a stand. Most monotheists would say that you must, by definition, unconditionally surrender to the terms of God. Your needs and desires must be set aside. Notions of hell will come rapidly into many conversations right around here. (free will being something it is great to have but not to use, much as freedom of speech is often viewed by conservatives)

I think there is a great difference between monotheisms that work with the concept of karma, and those that do not.
What you say above certainly applies to those monotheisms that do not work with the concept of karma.

However, religious traditions that work with the concept of karma (and in relation to it, rebirth/reincarnation), typically have a remarkably different approach to practice in comparison to non-karmic traditions.
Karmic traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism emphasize graduality, doing your best - whatever that currently is for you, taking little steps, not talking beyond one's realizations, being honest about what you actually know for yourself; they emphasize doing good works, making merit, being generous.
Generally in these traditions, they won't stigmatize you if you don't have first-hand realization of a doctrinal truth. Unlike in non-karmic traditions, where there is the tendency especially among proselytizers, to flat-out call you stupid, proud, evil if within a month or a year you cannot say with all certainty that you know God exists.

I think it is crucial that one be a responsible listener/receiver of the teachings that various religious traditions impart. One has to be serious about oneself, know what one is able and willing to do, and what not. Because if one just hastily takes on some religious beliefs and practices, disregarding one's actual state of mind and circumstances, such practice likely won't amount to much and will likely even cause spiritual degradation.

 

[Simon Anders]

However, religious traditions that work with the concept of karma (and in relation to it, rebirth/reincarnation), typically have a remarkably different approach to practice in comparison to non-karmic traditions.
Karmic traditions like Buddhism

I didn't know Buddhism was considered a monotheism.

and Hinduism emphasize graduality

and I thought it was more on the mystical end of Hinduism (or the various Hinduisms) that H was monotheistic. But that said....

doing your best - whatever that currently is for you, taking little steps, not talking beyond one's realizations, being honest about what you actually know for yourself; they emphasize doing good works, making merit, being generous.
Generally in these traditions, they won't stigmatize you if you don't have first-hand realization of a doctrinal truth. Unlike in non-karmic traditions, where there is the tendency especially among proselytizers, to flat-out call you stupid, proud, evil if within a month or a year you cannot say with all certainty that you know God exists.

To insiders or family members I assume. In any case I have known a lot of monotheists and none of them has said this to me. A few I did not know well did give off that vibe.

I think it is crucial that one be a responsible listener/receiver of the teachings that various religious traditions impart. One has to be serious about oneself, know what one is able and willing to do, and what not. Because if one just hastily takes on some religious beliefs and practices, disregarding one's actual state of mind and circumstances, such practice likely won't amount to much and will likely even cause spiritual degradation.

Well you are asking the person to take themselves seriously and that sets them or you really apart.

I would add that one must get beyond but not exclude analysis of what the followers and texts are saying and check in with what one's gut feelings are telling you about the religion in question. How does it feel to hear this or that?

Sort of like you were screening roomates: The prospective roomate may go on and on about what he will do for you (Heaven, insight, inclusion, understanding) but if it feels creepy then at the very least it is not time for you guys to live together.

 

[greenberg]

I didn't know Buddhism was considered a monotheism.

I didn't consider Buddhism to be a monotheism. If you read the rest of my post, you see it is focused on the distinction karmic vs. non-karmic, not monotheistic vs. polytheistic/atheistic.

and I thought it was more on the mystical end of Hinduism (or the various Hinduisms) that H was monotheistic. But that said....

Granted, there are some problems with the use of the word "Hindu". It is sometimes used to refer to all sorts of traditions and practices taking place in India, and other times to a theism with one supreme God and several demigods (the term "polytheism" only really applies when all the gods in a tradition are on the same level; so a system with one supreme God and several demigods is still a monotheism).

Well you are asking the person to take themselves seriously and that sets them or you really apart.

Sure.

I would add that one must get beyond but not exclude analysis of what the followers and texts are saying and check in with what one's gut feelings are telling you about the religion in question. How does it feel to hear this or that?

Agreed. Although I have found feelings to be a rather poor basis for making assessments. One reason I can see is because I've been physically ill and in a poor state a lot and the messages my body is sending me about this and that get in the way of rational assessment.

Sort of like you were screening roomates: The prospective roomate may go on and on about what he will do for you (Heaven, insight, inclusion, understanding) but if it feels creepy then at the very least it is not time for you guys to live together.

I know from personal experience that it is possible to asses such statements rationally, too.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries...........

even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas

A perfect transmitter designs an imperfect receiver? Non believers are synonymous with non functioning receivers?

If a non believer does an about face then the batteries have mysteriously been recharged? Safer to say receivers on non believers are turned off, no? No one's batteries really go dead. If God attempts to communicate with a dead receiver then He is really stupid. No, I think God would have to admit failure if He can only talk to some of us, and any attempt at communication would reveal the imperfection.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if we're faulty then it doesn't matter how perfect the sender is. Just try and communicate between two walkie talkies when one of them has flat batteries...........

even the trouble shooting list on a walkie talkie would be sufficient to give a few good ideas
”
A perfect transmitter designs an imperfect receiver? Non believers are synonymous with non functioning receivers?

its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action - for instance if I believe that the walkie talkie can work if I hold the orange button before speaking, that belief becomes valid when I act on it. As for design, a walkie talkie is perfectly deigned for communication but imperfectly designed for being a hammer - similarly it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way

If a non believer does an about face then the batteries have mysteriously been recharged? Safer to say receivers on non believers are turned off, no? No one's batteries really go dead. If God attempts to communicate with a dead receiver then He is really stupid.

therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)

No, I think God would have to admit failure if He can only talk to some of us, and any attempt at communication would reveal the imperfection.

if we think we have better things to do than properly listen that's fine. God can wait. He has all the time in the world.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action ....... it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way

Excellent wriggling. Do you see anything wrong if God only speaks to believers? I would consider God's plunking of Jesus in our midst as a form of communication would you not? So He would be communicating Christ's arrival to believers only. If I accept that this is God's work then I can only be a believer. I think something like this speaks volumes. Remember the cargo cultists?

therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)

This is starting to look like a Roddenberry. God is a creature that communicates through the mood, a little love and capitulation. Whatever happened to 'Hello, God here'? It always comes down to this..... the big cop out answer..... what God does is incomprehensible to us. If so then it is useless to open communication with the big guy and vice versa.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
its not so much about belief but action - but I suppose you could say that belief is the first step of action ....... it's not so much a case of us being designed imperfectly but us utilizing our existence the wrong way
”
Excellent wriggling. Do you see anything wrong if God only speaks to believers?

As already mentioned there is no escaping god's "communication"

I would consider God's plunking of Jesus in our midst as a form of communication would you not?

sure, but that is more like through a medium - much like a king can communicate through a diplomat

So He would be communicating Christ's arrival to believers only.
If I accept that this is God's work then I can only be a believer. I think something like this speaks volumes. Remember the cargo cultists?

I assume that many who came to accept jesus as god's representative didn't have that standing at the outset .. so something must have changed in the interim.
I can't see what idea you are trying to strike with the cargo cultists.

“

therefore god has access to what is termed the external energy (or the laws that govern material existence) - if we don't want to communicate with god's internal potency (ie cultivate a mood of loving service and surrender), then the alternative is to communicate with god's external energy (ie do whatever the hell you want in the medium of birth death in the company of a gazillion other similarly like minded falsely independent personalities)
”
This is starting to look like a Roddenberry. God is a creature that communicates through the mood, a little love and capitulation. Whatever happened to 'Hello, God here'? It always comes down to this..... the big cop out answer..... what God does is incomprehensible to us. If so then it is useless to open communication with the big guy and vice versa.

I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.

Maybe God needs a constitution. I would expect Him to tell us He is imperfect. There is no need for God to hide this or any other information that may be detrimental to his omniness. I think a little bit of honesty would do wonders, even for believers. Of course a communication of this sort would do exactly what the OP suggests, show that God is imperfect.

Current constitution is fraudulent and thus voided until God fesses up.

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I think you have missed an essential point.
Constitutionally (or eternally, if you like) we are situated in a position of service and surrender to god ... we left that environment and because we are constitutionally dependent (ie we have no potency to generate our own environment, etc) we require a suitable atmosphere to exhibit our independence. And that is specifically what this world was designed by god for ... so IOW we have already gone past the "hello, god here" phase by the time we arrive here.
”
Maybe God needs a constitution.

what for?

I would expect Him to tell us He is imperfect.

why?

There is no need for God to hide this or any other information that may be detrimental to his omniness.

its not so much hiding but respecting our desire to express our independence

I think a little bit of honesty would do wonders, even for believers. Of course a communication of this sort would do exactly what the OP suggests, show that God is imperfect.

seems like you are fixated on your own perfection and assume that the universe has to tow your line

Current constitution is fraudulent and thus voided until God fesses up.

social discontentment is also a common attitude problem of people serving jail sentences

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

social discontentment is also a common attitude problem of people serving jail sentences

Social acquiescence is a common attitude of people serving God. The obvious retort would be to compare an Earthbound god fearing existence to life in jail.

 

[lightgigantic]

Social acquiescence is a common attitude of people serving God.

its also a quality of persons not in jail

The obvious retort would be to compare an Earthbound god fearing existence to life in jail.

my point is that you're expressing your opinion that god is imperfect for what appears to be reasons based on your own status quo.
my point is that this is strikingly similar to a discontented prisoner.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

my point is that you're expressing your opinion that god is imperfect for what appears to be reasons based on your own status quo.
my point is that this is strikingly similar to a discontented prisoner.

A prisoner should be discontented.

My current affairs are subject to change. Of course my opinions may have been influenced by outside agencies. No different than most. Yes, there are some not so nice things I have seen that many don't but I don't blame God for them.

How is my claim that God is imperfect any different than the opposing view? Jeezuz LG, any speculation about my personal non internet life isn't going to change me.

 

[lightgigantic]

A prisoner should be discontented.

My current affairs are subject to change. Of course my opinions may have been influenced by outside agencies. No different than most. Yes, there are some not so nice things I have seen that many don't but I don't blame God for them.

How is my claim that God is imperfect any different than the opposing view?

basically you start with an imperfect definition of god (one that is not standard or accepted by practitioners) so any further speculation on the matter doesn't amount to much - I mean if you use happiness in the material world as a starting point for determining how god should behave or manage the world, that is kind of like using happiness in a prison as a starting point for determining how society should be organized.

Jeezuz LG, any speculation about my personal non internet life isn't going to change me.

I didn't mean to try and second guess your real life - I'm simply going by your posts