Does God make mistakes?

[wynn]

I meant would you volunteer to be conditioned purely at the descretion of someone else?

I am not sure what that would imply, so I have difficulty answering.
But for the sake of caution - no, I would not want to willingly have someone play me as they wish.
What point would you like to make with this question?

Logically, the option to not exist is impossible, but it is something I find the least unappealing, given the other options.

What is this statement in relation to?

That the thing I find most appealing (even though I do not find it appealing per se, just that it is the least unappealing option of several unappealing options), is to not exist.

Sure, such noble goals. The top one being to cultivate detachment from the desire to ever be with God, right?

Not from a religious perspective.

In theory, perhaps.

Sounds like you have issues.

I have issues??

Many people's problems with God are about raped babies, plagues, floods and such.

My problem with God is about theists.
For the sake of consistency, I have to believe that God does not make mistakes.
For all practical intents and purposes, this means that I have to believe that the whole hierarchical model of trying to please God and to come to God makes perfect sense and is perfectly moral and correct. So that when some theist, who happens to be above me in the hierarchy, wants that I unconditionally surrender to them (at the threat of otherwise committing an offense so grave as to send me to hell), when I am expected to believe that the hierarchy between theists trumps everything else - this is when I have a problem. If I would believe that God makes mistakes, I would say that this hierarchical model is a mistake.

Theism looks nice in theory. But in my experience, not in practice.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Would you allow a three year old child to run among the house with a loaded machine gun?, with the safety catch off

Of course not, But God has allowed immature mankind to develop the atomic bomb, it revolves around this free will Idea and this is where I see God's greatest mistake, he should have given humanity free will with a number of reservations don't you think?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

The phrasing "the baby doesn't care, period" extends the statement to a general one. And is later confirmed by Jan's question

What do babies care about?

The baby would be aware of the pain, and most certainly distressed, but is it capable of caring?

My enquires WERE in the context of the discussion. Meaning that if babies don't care about scriptures while being raped, what do they care about, ON THAT LEVEL OF CARE, which is why I asked the first of the above questions.

While a baby's pain and distress fall into the definition of care, there are other points within the definition that do not apply with a babies level of development, so my enquiry is justified.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

Where was God in the Holocaust?

Where is the need for god to be dominantly and directly present to curtail acts of stupidity in the material world?

 

[lightgigantic]

Would you allow a three year old child to run among the house with a loaded machine gun?, with the safety catch off

no, but I might give them a pretend gun to play with

Of course not, But God has allowed immature mankind to develop the atomic bomb, it revolves around this free will Idea and this is where I see God's greatest mistake, he should have given humanity free will with a number of reservations don't you think?

The reservations are that off the wall expressions of free will (such as atomic warfare) are relegated to the material world (complete with a pretend identity to operate out of)

 

[science man]

Never ask comments on the subject of religion on a science forum,

Although religiously I strongly agree, why is it so. I have reported this kind of thing for religious reasons and got responses that made me realize that anything is allowed to be debatable around here. Was there a rule change recently or something?

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

You just didn't like the cruel part, I see.

I said "I didn't AGREE with your analasys".

Well if God is in control than in some ways it is not cruel but at times is.

What do you mean?

So how can god justify letting a baby get raped ? In this sense it is incredibly cruel and wicked.

A baby being raped is the result of the rapists mind.
The rapist doesn't have to rape, it's his/her choice.

The fact that it lets babies and children get raped.

The babies get raped because of the rapist.

Isn't it odd to you that babies getting raped doesn't line up with your scriptural POV ?

Isn't it odd that you are prepared to discuss, and blame God for something that is not scriptorally based, but outrightly deny Gods' Supremecy which is scriptorally based?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

But as you already admitted, god is in control of the material world. Why do you want to shift the responsibility for the cruelty to nature. When god is in control.

The responsibility for our actions are ours (beyond a certain age).
Nature provides the materials, God creates the matrix, and maintains it.
In this way the living entity can pretend to lord it, until he comes to his senses.

You can't have it both ways. If god is in control then he allows babies to get raped. Correct ?

No. The rapist allows babies to get raped.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I am not sure what that would imply, so I have difficulty answering.
But for the sake of caution - no, I would not want to willingly have someone play me as they wish.
What point would you like to make with this question?

It answers your question "what's so bad about conditional existence".

That the thing I find most appealing (even though I do not find it appealing per se, just that it is the least unappealing option of several unappealing options), is to not exist.

Can you imagine what it would be like not to exist?

In theory, perhaps.

...to cultivate detachment from the desire to ever be with God...

That is a form of modern atheism, or, it is the meaning of atheism in its unspoiled form.

I have issues??

Many people's problems with God are about raped babies, plagues, floods and such

.

I think these are used to descredit God, especially in discussions and debates, and as such, aren't problems. To those of us for whom they are problems, it can be easily explained. If after the explanation, they still spout is as a problem, bypassin any explanations. Then it is no longer a problem, but a philosophy to justify their belief system. In other words, they have been nobbled.

My problem with God is about theists.
For the sake of consistency, I have to believe that God does not make mistakes.

It's not a belief.
Superman can fly.
Popeye gains superhuman strength consuming spinach.
You don't have to believe in God, know that God does not make mistakes.

For all practical intents and purposes, this means that I have to believe that the whole hierarchical model of trying to please God and to come to God makes perfect sense and is perfectly moral and correct.

It's not a chore. If you don't want to believe, then don't.
It makes no sense to believe something because you feel you have to.

If I would believe that God makes mistakes, I would say that this hierarchical model is a mistake.

I would say the same thing.
But there is a hiefrachichal sytem that WILL naturally occur (as in any dicipline), because there are going to be folks who are more advanced in diciplines like self-control, austerities, practical knowldege scripture, and scriptoral injunctions, devotion, and so on.
But these advancements should reveal themselves to you over the course of time. Not that you should accept them based on someones say so. This is my opinion.

Theism looks nice in theory. But in my experience, not in practice.

There is no "practice" or "theory" in theism, it is merely a descriptive term.

The atheist regime is doing a good job in spreading confusion.

jan.

 

[wynn]

Can you imagine what it would be like not to exist?

No, and like I said, non-existence is a logical impossibility (for I would not be there to know that I do not exist, so how could I actually experience non-existence).

For the sake of consistency, I have to believe that God does not make mistakes.

It's not a belief.
Superman can fly.
Popeye gains superhuman strength consuming spinach.
You don't have to believe in God, know that God does not make mistakes.

It does involve an act of accepting that particular definition of God, and as such, it is belief.

It makes no sense to believe something because you feel you have to.

Will you come here and defend me when devotees have a go at me?
I suppose not, eh. :bawl:

I would say the same thing.
But there is a hiefrachichal sytem that WILL naturally occur (as in any dicipline), because there are going to be folks who are more advanced in diciplines like self-control, austerities, practical knowldege scripture, and scriptoral injunctions, devotion, and so on.

Sure, and it makes sense - in some ideal way.

But these advancements should reveal themselves to you over the course of time. Not that you should accept them based on someones say so. This is my opinion.

Great that you have such an opinion. I wasn't given the freedom to have it - before threatened with causing offense or "accept us as superior or there's the door".

I keep bringing this up, but Lightgigantic keeps avoiding this point, or relegates it to merely my feeling slighted.

When I first came in contact with devotees in person, it was like my whole world came crushing down, nothing made sense anymore. I constantly had to question my sanity and my sense of right and wrong. The meetings are on Fridays, and I am so exhausted and frustrated afterwards that I have to sleep the whole weekend.

For example, a devotee criticized me for how I sit. I sit upright, with hands in my lap. He said that kirtan wasn't about meditating on the Lord (at which point he mocked my posture). He spoke in a tone that made clear he would not accept any reply from me. He gave no scriptural basis for his criticism. The other devotees sat there silently, softly smiling, and said nothing.
Apparently, I was supposed to accept his criticism as valid, simply on account because he made it or because it was self-evident.

And things like that keep happening to me, at last once per meeting.
I do not see how to reconcile respect for devotees and intelligent discernment, they seem mutually exclusive to me.
Per se, I do not care if I am criticized, I don't care and if they spit on me.
But that I am put into a situation where I either trust such people and surrender to them fully, on their terms, or otherwise commit an offense against a Vaisnava and never make any progress toward God - I do not know how to reconcile this, or how that makes sense or is right.

Theism looks nice in theory. But in my experience, not in practice.

There is no "practice" or "theory" in theism, it is merely a descriptive term.

The atheist regime is doing a good job in spreading confusion.

I meant it in the sense of the difference between what one reads in books of scripture and what one encounters when faced with people who claim to be following that scripture.

 

[wynn]

I think I will leave this discussion, at least for now. I have presented my challenge, perhaps indirectly to both Jan and LG and directly above to Signal.

If one is putting forward the idea that a baby being raped really has to do with what that baby's soul did in a past life

how certain should one be?

Imagine how this idea will be received by those who have been raped - or otherwise severely abused - and how unnecessary and really rather cruel this would be if the idea is wrong.

How did those who believe this here reach enough certainty to publicly present this idea? On someone's authority? on personal recall of past life patterns? through logic? Intuition? Does it seem on contemplation now that whatever process it was that led you to believe this was a solid enough one to assert this publicly? Or, on second thought, is it really something you are kind of going along with because it seems fair or the authority in question seems to be right about other things or for reasons that might not justify taking such a stand?

Thanks.

While I still stand by what I said before about being responsible for whom one believes etc., I also think it would be nice - and not only nice, but more meaningful - if there would exist a more friendly relationship between the people who discuss profound and important spiritual topics.

My experience with theists has been that their message of love and salvation is all too often embedded in an attitude of contempt for me. There often seems to be a distinct duplicity between what they are saying and the nature of the communication in which they are saying it.

 

[Alan McDougall]

The God of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles most definitely makes mistakes, on the other hand if we dismiss gods as real entities, then both evolution of the earth and the universe also makes mistakes. Take your pick as what of the two you prefer

 

[Jan Ardena]

The God of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles most definitely makes mistakes, on the other hand if we dismiss gods as real entities, then both evolution of the earth and the universe also makes mistakes. Take your pick as what of the two you prefer

What mistakes did God definately make?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

It does involve an act of accepting that particular definition of God, and as such, it is belief.

There is only one definition of God, that actually means God, and that is the supreme being, the creator. We can come to different conclusions, but they are based purely on that definition. Clearly we do not have to believe in God to understand this. The atheists on here believe that God is NOT omnipotent, and NOT in control, they also believe that God does NOT exist. But all this NOT is in relation TO the one definition of God.

Sure, and it makes sense - in some ideal way.

Why only in "some ideal way"?

Great that you have such an opinion. I wasn't given the freedom to have it - before threatened with causing offense or "accept us as superior or there's the door".

Do you accept that Einstein was a brilliant scientist?
Do you accept that Mozart was a brilliant composer?
Did someone force you into this acceptance?

As for the rest of your post, we'll take it up on a different thread, or in pm's.

jan.

 

[wynn]

It does involve an act of accepting that particular definition of God, and as such, it is belief.

There is only one definition of God, that actually means God, and that is the supreme being, the creator. We can come to different conclusions, but they are based purely on that definition. Clearly we do not have to believe in God to understand this. The atheists on here believe that God is NOT omnipotent, and NOT in control, they also believe that God does NOT exist. But all this NOT is in relation TO the one definition of God.

I am not sure how your comment relates to what I said.
I was not aware that such one definition exists.

Why only in "some ideal way"?

I have nothing against hierarchy.
But I do have a problem when it is enforced like in a pack of dogs, with as much communication.

Do you accept that Einstein was a brilliant scientist?
Do you accept that Mozart was a brilliant composer?
Did someone force you into this acceptance?

Not in a gun-to-the-head kind of way; but there is pressure to accept particular cultural statements.
For myself, I do not know what is required that someone be a brilliant composer, I don't know any music theory.
I am also not a professional scientist to know what makes a brilliant scientist. (How much did Einstein's particular social skills and personality quirks contribute to the popularization of his ideas? Gödel, for example, also had ground-breaking ideas, but he was a secluded strange person.)

As for accepting the superiority of the devotees - Since it is said that everyone should become KC, I assumed that this means that those who are already KC will have coping mechanisms to offer to those - like myself - who are not yet KC. Because they do say that everyone should strive toward KC, so I had thought they would be willing to accomodate everyone, that more would be explained. Is it really too much to expect that something that is purported to be for everyone, will be such that everyone can in fact participate? Instead, in my estimation, an enormous amount of things needs to be accepted without being allowed to ask any questions (and I am not talking about theological tenets, but mostly about the implicit tenets of interactions between people).

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

You just didn't like the cruel part, I see. ”

I said "I didn't AGREE with your analasys".

Doesn't matter. You believe god is in control. So all is applied, the good and the bad.

Well if God is in control than in some ways it is not cruel but at times is. ”

What do you mean?

The good and the bad. I would say that offering life and the continued support is pretty iimportant and good. But letting babies get raped is not.

A baby being raped is the result of the rapists mind.
The rapist doesn't have to rape, it's his/her choice.

But god is in control. So again, which is it. Is god omnipotent or not.

The babies get raped because of the rapist.

Now your contradicting yourself.

“ Isn't it odd to you that babies getting raped doesn't line up with your scriptural POV ? ”

Isn't it odd that you are prepared to discuss, and blame God for something that is not scriptorally based, but outrightly deny Gods' Supremecy which is scriptorally based?

It's not suprising that they wouldn't discuss babies getting raped regarding god's supremecy.

“ But as you already admitted, god is in control of the material world. Why do you want to shift the responsibility for the cruelty to nature. When god is in control. ”

The responsibility for our actions are ours (beyond a certain age).
Nature provides the materials, God creates the matrix, and maintains it.
In this way the living entity can pretend to lord it, until he comes to his senses.

Now your just making crap up.

What age is (beyond a certain age) ?

Nature provides the materials ?

Didn't god create it all ?

You can't have it both ways. If god is in control then he allows babies to get raped. Correct ? ”

No. The rapist allows babies to get raped.

But if god is control then he is in control of the rapist.

Just allows him to do it.

Face it Jan, if god is in control as you suggest, then he is both good and bad. He also makes mistakes.

So logically it is better to argue that god is not in control. That allows us our free will and to make the mistakes.

So then where does god fit in.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

I am not sure how your comment relates to what I said.
I was not aware that such one definition exists.

What other definition of God is there?
And what are the foundations of those defnitions?

For myself, I do not know what is required that someone be a brilliant composer, I don't know any music theory.
I am also not a professional scientist to know what makes a brilliant scientist. (How much did Einstein's particular social skills and personality quirks contribute to the popularization of his ideas? Gödel, for example, also had ground-breaking ideas, but he was a secluded strange person.)

But do you accept they are brilliant?

As for accepting the superiority of the devotees - Since it is said that everyone should become KC, I assumed that this means that those who are already KC will have coping mechanisms to offer to those - like myself - who are not yet KC. Because they do say that everyone should strive toward KC, so I had thought they would be willing to accomodate everyone, that more would be explained. Is it really too much to expect that something that is purported to be for everyone, will be such that everyone can in fact participate? Instead, in my estimation, an enormous amount of things needs to be accepted without being allowed to ask any questions (and I am not talking about theological tenets, but mostly about the implicit tenets of interactions between people).

KC, like any good system of self-realisation, is, above all else, a practical application. Maybe you are trying to run before you can walk.
Have you thought about that?

jan

 

[wynn]

What other definition of God is there?
And what are the foundations of those defnitions?

There are many philosophical ones, like "God is that being than whom no greater being can be conceived". Such definitions are not necessarily directly from scriptures, but they have been devised by religious people (or at least they were considered religious by some).

But do you accept they are brilliant?

I don't care, it makes no difference to me.
I am neither a physicist nor a musician, so I do not have a professional opinion on them. For the sake of social conformity, I of course will say they are brilliant.

KC, like any good system of self-realisation, is, above all else, a practical application. Maybe you are trying to run before you can walk.
Have you thought about that?

Yes, I have thought about that from the beginning on - where it was that I went wrong.
I have chanted, kept the regulative principles, studied scriptures, but it seemed to have made absolutely no difference - I didn't fit in among the devotees at all.
It was Lightgigantic who was very much interested that I start going to meetings. I specifically asked him whether he thought I was ready, and he said I was. I don't know how he could have made such a mistake.
My conclusion is that I am simply far too much a beginner to even remotely fit in, and that there is no point in going there.
But now my question is whether there is any point in trying to continue some kind of solitary practice, given that I am so explicitly separated from the devotees.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

Doesn't matter. You believe god is in control. So all is applied, the good and the bad.

As I said, I disagree with your analasys.

The good and the bad. I would say that offering life and the continued support is pretty iimportant and good. But letting babies get raped is not.

With the power to offer life, and continued support, don't you think God is able to give inspiration to produce scriptures?

But god is in control. So again, which is it. Is god omnipotent or not.

God, by definition is omnipotent.

Now your contradicting yourself.

Not at all.
The rapist makes the choice.
He doesn't have to rape.
Do you agree?

It's not suprising that they wouldn't discuss babies getting raped regarding god's supremecy.

It seems to me that you only read scripture (most probably only the bible) to
try and find points that justify your own veiws.

Now your just making crap up.

Granted my statement are crude, but it's not made up.
I could find texts to back my statements, but I doubt that would make
any difference.
But this proves my theory that you're not interested in actually finding
out about God.

What age is (beyond a certain age) ?

I think the age is between 12 and 14 years old.

Nature provide the materials ?

Yes.

Didn't god create it all ?

No.
Material nature/energy, is.
God commands nature, and nature obliges
That's why nature is regarded as "mother nature".

But if god is control then he is in control of the rapist.

The rapist has a free will, that is part of his overall make-up.
He has decided to commit rape. The real question should be; why, or how is it, he comes to that decision?.

Face it Jan, if god is in control as you suggest, then he is both good and bad. He also makes mistakes.

God, by definition, can't make mistakes.
God by definition can't be bad.
Are you prepared to argue against scriptoral texts that show you're wrong, and i'm right?
If you're arguments didn't stand up, would you be prepared to change your mind?

So logically it is better to argue that god is not in control. That allows us our free will and to make the mistakes.

If God ALLOWS us free will, then how is it He is not in control? :shrug:

So then where does god fit in.

It's more a case of where do we fit in.
Read scriptures, learn more. At the moment your argument sounds quite childish.

jan.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

“ The good and the bad. I would say that offering life and the continued support is pretty iimportant and good. But letting babies get raped is not. ”

With the power to offer life, and continued support, don't you think God is able to give inspiration to produce scriptures?

Sure, but he also has the power to stop babies being raped.

But god is in control. So again, which is it. Is god omnipotent or not. ”

God, by definition is omnipotent.

So then clearly capable of stopping babies being raped.

“ Now your contradicting yourself. ”

Not at all.
The rapist makes the choice.
He doesn't have to rape.
Do you agree?

In my world view, yes. But then I don't believe god is in control. So yes the rapist is responsilbe. But you state the god IS in control. If that is the case then you have to apply all the bad with the good.

Your wanting to have it both ways. God in control. But he only does good.

“ It's not suprising that they wouldn't discuss babies getting raped regarding god's supremecy. ”

It seems to me that you only read scripture (most probably only the bible) to
try and find points that justify your own veiws.

What I see is others that want to give credit for god doing good things but then blame others for the bad.

“ Now your just making crap up. ”

Granted my statement are crude, but it's not made up.
I could find texts to back my statements, but I doubt that would make
any difference.
But this proves my theory that you're not interested in actually finding
out about God.

Well then find them. You make a statement as if it's fact but sounds to me like it's just something you made up.

It is also very pertinent to your position. That god is in control but AT A CERTAIN AGE, that no longer applies.

What age is (beyond a certain age) ? ”

I think the age is between 12 and 14 years old.

Evidence please ? Not that it really makes that much difference on the larger question, but I just think your BS-ing me.

“ Nature provide the materials ? ”

Yes.


“ Didn't god create it all ? ”

No.
Material nature/energy, is.
God commands nature, and nature obliges
That's why nature is regarded as "mother nature".

Are we not part of nature ? Are we not material energy ?

Face it Jan, if god is in control as you suggest, then he is both good and bad. He also makes mistakes. ”

God, by definition, can't make mistakes.
God by definition can't be bad.
Are you prepared to argue against scriptoral texts that show you're wrong, and i'm right?
If you're arguments didn't stand up, would you be prepared to change your mind?

As I said before the scriptures are meaningless in regards to the questions I have posed.

The scriptures are meaningless to the raped baby.

Regardless of what the scriptures say. If god is in control then answer how a god that is control, makes no mistakes, can't be bad allows babies to be raped.

The problem is that you are hiding behind the scriptures and not facing the reality of raped babies.

Raped babies are real by the way. There is not one shred of evidence of God being in control.

So logically it is better to argue that god is not in control. That allows us our free will and to make the mistakes. ”

If God ALLOWS us free will, then how is it He is not in control?

I don't believe god does allow us freewill. But it's a good question for you to try and answer in other ways.

If god allows us freewill, he also has the ability to stop the raping of the baby.

So why does he allow it ?

Maybe the answer is that he is not in control and he does not offer us freewill.

Your trying to place answers where there is none. IOW. Your are trying to put god in the equation when everytime you put him there it doesn't fit. Like cramming a square into a round hole.

What fits is that god is not in control and that is why the human is allowed to rape. The only ones that will do anything about it is other humans.

So then where does god fit in. ”

It's more a case of where do we fit in.
Read scriptures, learn more. At the moment your argument sounds quite childish.

My argument sounds childish ?

Now that's irony.