Does God make mistakes?
- Thread starter Alan McDougall
- Start date
Not IMO. In the end what is, is what is. The raped baby doesn't care about what the scriptures say while it's being raped.
So which is it.
The god is cruel and in control ?
The god does not have control ?
The god is inept, lol ?
Can the real god please stand up.
Right, and this is why the pantheism reasoning doesn't work to explain these mistakes.
In that scenario there is no specific entity and we are in control of our own destiny and we make the choices and there is no specific god to take control.
We can't simultaneously say that the god is all powerfull, is capable of making mistakes and yet has no responsibility for the mistakes.
IOW, he let the child get raped, period.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
That is news to me, according to Islam Jesus was just another prophet among many, the last and greatest prophet is Mohammad , peace be upon him
But in I believe that Jesus was the greatest godman that ever lived, peace be upon him also
And peace be upon you too.
I realize this is a charged topic, and what I will say might sound cruel, but:
People are responsible for what they think.
People are responsible for what they believe.
People are responsible for whom they choose to listen to.
When people experience trauma in their lives, they sometimes have a very strong desire to give up their responsibility for what they think, believe, whom they listen to.
So they seem to think that because they have experienced trauma, it should be that whoever claims to know the truth or takes an interest in them, indeed knows and tells the truth and has the traumatized person's best interest at heart.
As if being a victim would somehow absolve them of personal responsibility and grant them the qualification for unconditional audience to the Absolute Truth.
"I have been raped! I now have the right to be told only the Absolute Truth! People are now obligated to tell me the Absolute Truth only! People are now obligated to be kind to me and only wish me well!"
But just because one is a victim of a violation or crime, this does not make one's responsibilites expire.
If someone cuts in front of you in traffic - it is up to you to take responsibility for your response (whether you get angry, sad, whichever, what you think of the event, to whom you talk about it).
If you get gang raped, it is the same, as far as taking responsibility for your response goes.
I am not saying that by you taking responsibility for your response, others are absolved from being responsible for what they say.
In Chinese Buddhism, for example, they believe that if one instructs another person wrongly, one will be born blind the next time around; elsewhere, it is suggested that a false instructor could end up in hell. The teachings on karma and reincarnation do state there are consequences for instructing people wrongly.
I think here something must be specified:
Every phenomenon that a person observes or focuses on that has happened to them, is not necessarily one that the person also desired.
It is not accurate to say that whatever (is observed or focused on that) happened to a person, was also what the person desired.
If I run down a flight of stairs, trip, fall and break my leg, this does not necessarily mean that I desired to break my leg.
I desired to quickly come down the stairs, or I desired to quickly get out of the building. In the course of running down the stairs, a number of things can happen that I had no desire for and probably haven't thought about either.
Last edited:
Some questions:
What do you think is a "person"?
What do you think is the relationship between the body and the soul?
How do you think does human action take place, what factors are necessary for human action to take place?
You seem to think that God, if He is to be any kind of a real God, should be the same at all times and in all circumstances, regardless of whom He is interacting with or when or about what -?
jpappl,
The babe doesn't care, period.
So which is it.
None of the above.
God is in control of material nature.
Material nature has its laws.
As we are here, our bodies are under the control of material nature.
The point of real religion is bring the mind, therefore the senses, under control.
This way we can eventually understand, by practical application, how not to return to this conditional existence, once we finally leave the body.
You don't have to believe it is true, but within it there lies answers to the question posed by Doreen. One only has to look.
jan.
The babe doesn't care, period.
So which is it.
None of the above.
God is in control of material nature.
Material nature has its laws.
As we are here, our bodies are under the control of material nature.
The point of real religion is bring the mind, therefore the senses, under control.
This way we can eventually understand, by practical application, how not to return to this conditional existence, once we finally leave the body.
You don't have to believe it is true, but within it there lies answers to the question posed by Doreen. One only has to look.
jan.
It's quite simple.
You create an avatar in an online game.
When the avatar (you) is shot, stabbed, or raped, why don't you feel the pain of the ordeal?
Because you are completely aware that avatar is only a representation of you.
Jesus was in this world, but not of it, which is how he could act the way he did.
That's a crude a version of my thoughts on LG's stance.
jan.
I agree.
But my point is that, desires come with consequences.
What Doreen seems to be miffed about are the consequences of innumerable desires over innumerable millenias.
"...i want to go on that scary ride, who are you to tell me i can't?...?
Then when someone gets killed we cry..."..why do we allow these dangerous rides?..."
jan.
But why should the senses be brought under control, for what purpose, to what end?
At first glance, controlling the senses seems like a prudent endeavor, but upon further examination, I just don't see the point, other than trying to take pride in austerity and get some satisfaction that way.
What is so bad about conditional existence?
Again, at first glance, it seems prudent to want out. Out of conditional existence toward what?
I see no reason to think that unconditional existence is any better than this; it's just another kind of misery, if not worse.
First of all, where did God say He made a mistake?
And secondly, I find it utterly demoralizing to consider that God could be fallible.
To believe that God is fallible is to believe that that which per definition contextualizes my own sanity/rationality, is fallible.
But if that which per definition contextualizes my own sanity/rationality, is fallible, then so is my sanity/rationality.
And so I do not actually possess the ability to judge whether God is fallible or not.
"God is fallible" is an absurd statement.
Signal,
To control the flow of material desires, which eventually diverts the attention
of the mind, to the body.
So if you're going to take an important exam, do you think it is wise to discipline yourself in preparation, or not?
jan.
To control the flow of material desires, which eventually diverts the attention
of the mind, to the body.
So if you're going to take an important exam, do you think it is wise to discipline yourself in preparation, or not?
jan.
Sure. But people take exams for a reason, a reason they find worthy enough.
But what can one really look forward to in relation to God?
An eternity of telling myself "No, this is wonderful, I am so happy, this is so good, no, I am not miserable at all, this is so fine and good and all is well!!" -?
Signal,
Would you volunteer for forced conditioning if offered?
If you answer no, then you'll have your answer.
If you answer yes, then my answer is, nothing is bad about it.
Toward pureness, understanding things as they are, no more need for anxiety, real pleasure, equally steady in happiness, or distress.
We are all working toward a blissfull life, even the rapist, but we just can't seem to reach it, as there is always something just around the corner to upset the applecart.
This is due to insatiable desires, which come about through the need to gratify our bodily senses, always ending in disappointment.
Why?
jan.
Would you volunteer for forced conditioning if offered?
If you answer no, then you'll have your answer.
If you answer yes, then my answer is, nothing is bad about it.
Toward pureness, understanding things as they are, no more need for anxiety, real pleasure, equally steady in happiness, or distress.
We are all working toward a blissfull life, even the rapist, but we just can't seem to reach it, as there is always something just around the corner to upset the applecart.
This is due to insatiable desires, which come about through the need to gratify our bodily senses, always ending in disappointment.
Why?
jan.
Have you ever had a glimpse of happiness, or calmness, or satisfaction, in your life?
jan.
No. And of course I feel guilty about that, thinking of events, actions and people and telling myself "Oh, but this was happiness, that was good." But no, it was not. Mere scratches on the surface.
Of course, plenty of people will come in and say that this is because I am not sincere, because I want to lord it over material nature and because the Dharma is simple for the simple-hearted and hard for the crooked! So I am crooked, allright, what should I do?
I keep thinking that if only I managed to hate myself enough, if only I managed to feel stupid and evil enough, then things would get better. After all, this is the cure for crooked people, right? But so far, it hasn't worked.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe that.
Haven't you ever felt blissfull, even for a moment.
Listening to music, reading a book, talking to someone, seen beauty in nature....
jan.
"Volunteer" and "forced" are mutually exclusive, so I cannot answer your question.
Logically, the option to not exist is impossible, but it is something I find the least unappealing, given the other options.
Sure, such noble goals. The top one being to cultivate detachment from the desire to ever be with God, right?
Because my suspicion is that even if I somehow managed to come into the spiritual world, I would end up being the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant etc.. And that when I would eventually ask the servant above me "When will I finally see God and have a relationship with Him, as is promised in the scriptures?", then some stuck-up city damsel, of course a proper devotee and Vaisnavi (woe is me if I thought that she could be anything less than that), would explain to me that I just am not good enough and that I should find my happiness in forever yearning for God, or she'd even explain to me how the relationship in absence is even better than a direct one and that I should cultivate that. And of course I would have to believe her that and act accordingly, for otherwise by disagreeing with her, I would be committing an offense against a Vaisnava, and off to hell with me!