Does God make mistakes?

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

The baby is a body inhabited by the soul.
The soul being conditioned accepts the body as the self, and the body
is that of an innocent baby. Innocent because it is unable to act, or make
coherent decisions at that time.

OK, can that soul deserve rape?

I'm not sure "deserve" is the correct word to use.
Also, not every child born to peodophiles gets raped by their parents, and it's quite possible that peodophiles may realise the error of their ways by having children. It's not as cut and dried as you may like to think.

This sounds more Buddhist or Hindu. I thought we were talking about the Abrahamic God. A baby cannot have raped someone already in the Abrahamic traditions.

The idea of karma, and, reincarnation, is not a religious doctrine.
It is regarded as natural justice, and as such we create our own destiny while in the conditioned way of life. The phrase "birds of a feather.... spings to mind.

jan.

 

[jpappl]

There is nothing to justify some of the horrors that humans have inflicted on each other.

Either there is no god, or the omnipotent god makes mistakes or it allows these things to happen. In which case it doesn't appear to have the control over all things that some would like to believe.

The question then is. Why would a god make such mistakes ?

 

[Doreen]

There is nothing to justify some of the horrors that humans have inflicted on each other.

Either there is no god, or the omnipotent god makes mistakes or it allows these things to happen. In which case it doesn't appear to have the control over all things that some would like to believe.

The question then is. Why would a god make such mistakes ?

Thenotion of a God that is perfect, all powerful, all knowing, etc., is hardly universal and is a fairly recent idea. I realize you are an atheist or perhaps an agnostic (or both), but I'll throw out a way a god or God could be such that it makes mistakes. Let's say something similar to pantheism is the case. That the whole thing is alive and conscious. However knowledgeable such an entity might be, there is no reason that it also, like us on a smaller scale might not make mistakes along the way: IOW learn by doing parallel but on a vastly larger scale than we do.

 

[Doreen]

I'm not sure "deserve" is the correct word to use.
Also, not every child born to peodophiles gets raped by their parents, and it's quite possible that peodophiles may realise the error of their ways by having children. It's not as cut and dried as you may like to think.

I don't think I have said anything that would indicate I think it is cut and dried nor certainly that I would like to think that ALL of those babies will be raped. But if I am social worker and can place infants in various foster homes and I somehow - like an omniscient God - know that in some homes the chances of infant rape are very high, I will not place children there - if I have the power to avoid that and God certainly has that power. So even if some babies escape rape in these households, I do not see an omnipotent, loving God putting the children in harm's way. And I am not some supreme example of the loving, compassionate person, nor am I one who can prevent babies being raped with no effort at all. A God wihtout my limitations needs to be held to a high standard.

The idea of karma, and, reincarnation, is not a religious doctrine.

It is generally not accepted as an Abrahamic doctrine. In fact it it usually NOT coupled with the kind of personal, male deity found in the Abrahamic religions.

It is regarded as natural justice, and as such we create our own destiny while in the conditioned way of life.

Some people think this is the case. Do you?

The phrase "birds of a feather.... spings to mind.

Which in the end sounds like blaming the victim.

 

[Doreen]

One thing I like about LG's and Jan Ardena's approach that they do not box the communication into the tenets of just one religious tradition.

Sure, it was in the context of this discussion I found it confusing, but I've adapted. We are having a different discussion I would say.

An alternative approach is to take or presume a stance that is able to contextualize the individual religious traditions (which is what LG and Jan have been doing).

I guess. With LG, I find his ideas consistent, though he seems consistently Eastern, more on the Vedic side than the Buddhist. To me those traditions do not have the same kind of problem of evil that the Western traditions have, because there is not the sense of the personal loving father, for example. Unlike the Western traditions - or really Middle Eastern ones - there is the multiple lifetimes perspective. As far as Jan's posts it all seems rather elusive to me.

It is said...
It could be looked at....

I think if one is implicitly saying things are just fine, God has made no mistakes, some sort of stand has to be taken.

And I suppose, appropos our other discussion about when to challenge certain ideas, it seems radically important to me how one thinks of an experience like rape. It if really does not have to do with having been a rapist in a past life or some such, then telling people it does is a kind of abuse. And so to me I think one should be held to a rather high standard if this is something one is suggesting to others, rather than simply privately believing.

What experiences, intuition, logic, etc. are sufficient support to put out there that if you have been raped it is some karmic balance for what you did before?

How certain should one be to make such assertions?

 

[Doreen]

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.

 

[Michael]

In essence, the Abrahamic god may not have made a mistake, but 'he' may be one evil son of a bitch.

 

[lightgigantic]

OK. So Jesus was a soul that was materially untainted and thus he could suffer for another's sins. At the same time I got the impression you were saying that it is being tainted by material reality that opens the soul to suffering period. Have I missed something?

The contamination of the material atmosphere occurs through the medium of consciousness (ie one's attitude to the world in regards to one's sense of self) and not mere appearance in it.

Well there was probably some direct cross-pollinization. I think he went there.

If god is a singular entity, direct pollination is a given the universe over.

 

[Doreen]

Of course she thinks that, using Doreen's own words, she has "moved past a scientific agnosticism into claims about what (she) cannot know."

Something we all do, but only some admit. And you are quite right. Well spotted. Those who want to say only empirical knowledge (supported by research done following scientific methodology) is knowledge, need to live up to that. And so I called him on it in that way. Those who think there are other ways of gaining knowledge are not hypocritical when they venture beyond that limitation. I did venture there. I have not seen any research proving that babies are innocent and should not be raped.

 

[jpappl]

Doreen,

Thenotion of a God that is perfect, all powerful, all knowing, etc., is hardly universal and is a fairly recent idea. I realize you are an atheist or perhaps an agnostic (or both), but I'll throw out a way a god or God could be such that it makes mistakes. Let's say something similar to pantheism is the case. That the whole thing is alive and conscious. However knowledgeable such an entity might be, there is no reason that it also, like us on a smaller scale might not make mistakes along the way: IOW learn by doing parallel but on a vastly larger scale than we do.

Well for all of the wiccans and pantheist out there that may work because theirs is a vastly different idea than that of the bible or quran.

It's also cheating. Because either this god has impact or not.

What I am suggesting is that if this god can make mistakes then it also doesn't have full control.

It's just creating randomness in it's creation.

Therefore doesn't attempt to control anything because it can't.

That is hardly the definition of a god.

 

[Doreen]

I missed this post, so I'll respond.

The idea is that different (groups of) people in different circumstances receive different revelations about God, according to their abilities.
So these revelations can not simply be applied anytime anywhere by anyone.

Right. And perhaps not just abilities but way of experiencing the world - which includes culture, psychology etc.

To give an illustrative example: In times of war, there is usually martial law enforced. This sort of law is unacceptable in times of peace. In times of war, martial law is simply the best that law can be, even though from the pespective of peace, it seems cruel. In times of war, it simply is not possible to maintain teams of forensics, investigators, lengthy trials and such in order to satisfy justice, because there is a bigger danger present, namely being invaded by another country.

The Christian revelations came in times of great distress: famine, war, persecution, general crisis. When his house is on fire, a man just does not have the capacity to ponder theological intricacies, but just needs a few simple, powerful thoughts to see to it that he brings himself and his family into safety.

Sure, that is one kind of example.

I think it all depends on the kind of arguments you prefer or allow for believing in something.

If your preference are empirical arguments, then you cannot actually believe in anything, as empirical evidence is always inconclusive.

Pragmatic or moral arguments for believing in something, however, do not suffer from this flaw. I think it is safe to say that people usually believe in this or that on the grounds of pragmatic or moral arguments, and not empirical ones.

To have no empirical basis seems odd to me. I cannot choose something simply by how it seems on paper, so to speak.

For example, most governments of this world believe in world peace and invest great amounts of money and other resources toward that goal.

I actually don't think this is the case. Or at least this is not all they are doing. Much of what they do does not have this goal.

There is absolutely no empirical evidence that would indicate that world peace is even possible or what it would take to achieve it. From an empirical standpoint, it thus makes no sense to believe in world peace.
But it is demoralizing to not believe in world peace (or some version of it), and people believe in it, on the grounds of pragmatic and moral arguments for believing in world peace (given that there are no empirical ones).

It would be demoralizing to believe in, for example, such an unbalanced version of karma as you suggest above.

If it were permanent, sure. But I do not think it is. I think God has made mistakes and is now working at undoing them. I find all the various excuses made for God demoralizing in 3 ways 1) they do not fit my experience including of past lives 2) they tend to blame victims and those who do not like the way things are. It must be our fault, our spiritual failure. Those who like the way things are or pretend to are superior. 3) I would have to pretend I accept the various explanations for the problem of evil. This has always caused a constriction in my heart. I never could actually accept them and this was demoralizing.

When God said that mistakes had been made I felt incredibly validated. In ways I had long since given up hope about.

Karma in my sense of it has been heavily affect by distortions right through everything. As above, so below. And I have seen people who, for example, have always been women and have been raped and stalked through many lives and done nothing that this is some mirror image of. To finally have it validated that there has been an imbalance, but that this is being unraveled was unbelievably moralizing. I no longer had to try to accept the kinds of, what seem to me, cold mental gymnastics to cover up the fear of an unloving God.

So to me the pragmatic element is present...things can get better in the ways I want - precisely in parallel to your world peace example, in fact including it. Further this pragmatic includes self-relation in it. In terms of my self-relation it feels/is very pragmatic. I do not have to deny my experiences or my intuition to make it seem like the emporer really has had clothes all along.

I mean seriously, look at the discussion between me and Jan and the way it is implied that somehow it has really been OK that babies are raped without really quite saying this. The baby is innocent, but why am I sure the soul of the baby is? I mean, honestly this is a mind fuck.

We have been doing this for thousands of years. It's time to stop.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

If you want to measure the cruelty of a misplaced ideology, I think being proven wrong about past acts and their consequences holds far greater weight ...

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.

I'm not sure whether you are calling into question the notion of reincarnation or the ramifications of what it brings.

IOW do you want to center the discussion on "If reincarnation is a given, how can one be certain of its ramifications?" or "How can one be certain of reincarnation?"

At the core of both discussions is the sense of self. If one feels that all issues of self hood are reconciled by the body (big question marks around how it is in a stage of constant flux from infancy to oldage yet retains constant sense of self) I would argue that also requires an element of authority and going with the flow, arrived certainty etc.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Does God make mistakes?

Things that don't exist can't make mistakes.

 

[Doreen]

Well for all of the wiccans and pantheist out there that may work because theirs is a vastly different idea than that of the bible or quran.

I agree. In fact the thread slid from the Abrahamic traditions to others. I resisted for a bit, but gave up that resistence.

It's also cheating. Because either this god has impact or not.

What I am suggesting is that if this god can make mistakes then it also doesn't have full control.

It's just creating randomness in it's creation.

Therefore doesn't attempt to control anything because it can't.

That is hardly the definition of a god.

You went from analogue, with the potential for nuace, to digital all or nothing and also a permanent state of affairs. It could be that there has been some lack of control and that this is being worked on, for example. Something we experience with ourselves. IOW there is no reason why because God would be, in what for you is a completely hypothetical discussion, a 'creature' that is learning and making mistakes and developing. IOW a kind of enormous natural entity with challenges. And this certainly would be a god. Hell, many of the pagan gods have very small domains of power and expertise. This would still be a kind of monotheism with a diety whose problems are not necessarily potency but complete knowledge and control. Think of the problems that you needlessly created for yourself even though you were in control and then up the ante to universal levels.

 

[jpappl]

Doreen,

You went from analogue, with the potential for nuace, to digital all or nothing and also a permanent state of affairs. It could be that there has been some lack of control and that this is being worked on, for example. Something we experience with ourselves. IOW there is no reason why because God would be, in what for you is a completely hypothetical discussion, a 'creature' that is learning and making mistakes and developing. IOW a kind of enormous natural entity with challenges. And this certainly would be a god. Hell, many of the pagan gods have very small domains of power and expertise. This would still be a kind of monotheism with a diety whose problems are not necessarily potency but complete knowledge and control. Think of the problems that you needlessly created for yourself even though you were in control and then up the ante to universal levels

Well like I said it's cheating.

This is definition unlike anything I have heard to describe God or a god.

The above explanation or definition of god is trying to explain away the mistakes. It's apologizing for god and rationalizing away the errors.

How many billions of years does it take this god to know that letting a baby get raped is a freaking mistake ?

I think that if you take the pantheism idea, then this god or creator has no connection to us at all, it may have started the process but either lost control a long time ago or never planned on being in control.

IOW, we are either an experiment or we just happened to grow, like fungi. But here we are and either way we are apparently on our own.

 

[Doreen]

Well like I said it's cheating.

This is definition unlike anything I have heard to describe God or a god.

Um, you never studies the Greek and Roman gods in school? The Norse Gods? gods from indigenous groups all around the world?

The Abrahamic version of God is only one amongst many.

The above explanation or definition of god is trying to explain away the mistakes. It's apologizing for god and rationalizing away the errors.

No, it is absolutely not doing this. It is saying that errors have been made that God is fallible. I really cannot see where you got the opposite impression.

How many billions of years does it take this god to know that letting a baby get raped is a freaking mistake ?

You are assuming omnipotence given the mistakes already made. I understand that, but so it is.

I think that if you take the pantheism idea, then this god or creator has no connection to us at all, it may have started the process but either lost control a long time ago or never planned on being in control.

In this abstract discussion, sure, those are possibilities. Those are not my beliefs but those are other alternatives to the loving father all powerful Abrahamic God.

IOW, we are either an experiment or we just happened to grow, like fungi. But here we are and either way we are apparently on our own.

And again to shift to your own idiosyncratic digital set of options.

I'll leave it here between us, because your take on what I said so far has been uncharitable in the extreme.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

I don't think I have said anything that would indicate I think it is cut and dried.

You tend to have an either/or attitude toward this discussion.

But if I am social worker and can place infants in various foster homes and I somehow - like an omniscient God - know that in some homes the chances of infant rape are very high, I will not place children there - if I have the power to avoid that and God certainly has that power.

What if it is the desire of the living entity to be placed there?
The body, being a temporary manifestation, is an effect, or reflection of the soul, and as such has to go through the various stages of growth (including infant). But the soul does not go through these stages, but in its conditioned state acts according to it's body. When the soul leaves the body, it accepts another set of circumstances that favours its condition.

So even if some babies escape rape in these households, I do not see an omnipotent, loving God putting the children in harm's way.

No matter what, the body has to perish, that is natures law. Therefore the body, being only a temporary manifestation of the conditioned soul, being accepted as reality, is an illusion. This is the first point of understanding.

It is generally not accepted as an Abrahamic doctrine. In fact it it usually NOT coupled with the kind of personal, male deity found in the Abrahamic religions.

In Islam, it is generally accepted that Allah (God) has no form, yet in the books of the bible it is. Knowledge is revealed through religion according to time, place, and circumstance.

Some people think this is the case. Do you?

I think it is.

Which in the end sounds like blaming the victim.

Or it's just plain old attraction.
We see it all the time.
Have YOU ever, in your life, been attracted to situations, or activities you feel or know is not in your best interest?

jan.

 

[jpappl]

Doreen,

Um, you never studies the Greek and Roman gods in school? The Norse Gods? gods from indigenous groups all around the world?

The Abrahamic version of God is only one amongst many.

The god of Abraham has never been described alongside pantheism.

"Let's say something similar to pantheism is the case"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

They are very different and I have an easier time accepting the pantheism idea because it's basically saying that god is nature. So god although a part of us and within us, doesn't have the same controls or demands that have been attributed to the god of Abraham or any of the others.

So tell me what I missed in your original example of why god can make mistakes.

“ The above explanation or definition of god is trying to explain away the mistakes. It's apologizing for god and rationalizing away the errors. ”

No, it is absolutely not doing this. It is saying that errors have been made that God is fallible. I really cannot see where you got the opposite impression.

I did understand your point I just don't agree with it. Your avoiding the question and rationalizing the answer.

How can a god be all powerfull, the creator of all things and have control and allow something like the rape of a child ?

It becomes a slippery slope to answer that.

Either it doesn't have control or it allows the evil to occur.

Which is it ?

How many billions of years does it take this god to know that letting a baby get raped is a freaking mistake ? ”

You are assuming omnipotence given the mistakes already made. I understand that, but so it is

Yes that is the general idea of a god, omnipotent.

I think that if you take the pantheism idea, then this god or creator has no connection to us at all, it may have started the process but either lost control a long time ago or never planned on being in control. ”

In this abstract discussion, sure, those are possibilities. Those are not my beliefs but those are other alternatives to the loving father all powerful Abrahamic God.

Well this is my issue with the example. It is cheating because you are using the pantheism idea to explain the mistakes but then apply that example to the Abrahamic god who is given much more credit than us just being in a petri dish.

“ IOW, we are either an experiment or we just happened to grow, like fungi. But here we are and either way we are apparently on our own. ”

And again to shift to your own idiosyncratic digital set of options.

I'll leave it here between us, because your take on what I said so far has been uncharitable in the extreme.

It's not me that's shifting.

If we keep Pantheism as the example, then sure. But you are applying reasoning or the excuse for such mistakes being made in a Pantheism setting to the gods of other religions who are considered all powerfull, the creator and who has influence in our lives.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Doreen]

I realized I should have added that even the God of the old testement, before the Chrisitian theologians got ahold of him, was a cantakerous God who controlled neither Adam and Eve nor Lucifer. He had moods, changed his mind and acts differently in different situations. A monotheism with a God not in full control that changes over time.

 

[Michael]

I realized I should have added that even the God of the old testement, before the Chrisitian theologians got ahold of him, was a cantakerous God who controlled neither Adam and Eve nor Lucifer. He had moods, changed his mind and acts differently in different situations. A monotheism with a God not in full control that changes over time.

He really went out of control after Asherah left him :shrug: It seems having a son tempered him quite a bit. I'm assuming after 5000 years, Mary was probably a welcome sight for sore eyes! Speaking of Biblical chicks. What ever happened to Adam's wife Lilith?


If God is Perfect and Moral then children are never put into situations were they are raped. That simply doesn't happen. It's all an illusion as are all of you. Only Doreen exists here. This is her test

/God