The problem of theodicy in relation to theistic proselytizing

[wynn]

The problem of theodicy in relation to theistic proselytizing


This is inspired by this old thread A Defense of Theodicy.

I see no problem with God being evil as far as the "usual evils" (floods, earthquakes, cancer, small pox, murder, poverty etc.) are concerned. Such things do not make God seem evil to me.

To me, the actual problem of theodicy is in relation to theistic proselytizing.
When the people who speak and act (presumably) on God's behalf do evil in the course of trying to convert others. Anything from yelling at them to burning them at the stakes.
When the theist denies the other person any human rights, personal boundaries.
When the theist gratuitously betrays the trust of the other person and yet expects the person to just accept it and continue to trust, under the threat of some grave consequence for not doing so.
When the theist puts the other person into double binds like "P is true. You think it is false because you are in delusion. You must therefore accept P." or "If you don't do as I tell you, you are committing an offense that deserves to be punished with hell."


It is in cases like these that I am inclined to think that God is evil.

What kind of god would want that people first turn into slaves and whores to theists, in blind faith, in panic, turn into psychiatric patients, clinically depressed, suicidal robots, before they will be eligible to approach Him?

What kind of god would set it as a requirement that one must first hate oneself and think oneself a drooling idiot?

 

[Lori_7]

the real question is why do you associate these people with god?

 

[lightgigantic]

the real question is why do you associate these people with god?

and to further the point, why do you associate the absence of philosophy with god ....

 

[wynn]

the real question is why do you associate these people with god?

For one, they are the ones who talk about God (the most).

For two, as I admit that I do not know the truth about God, I have to allow for the possibility that anyone could be a representative of God.
Logically, I see no way around that.

 

[wynn]

and to further the point, why do you associate the absence of philosophy with god ....

Some theists might be very philosophical. But at the end of the day, they do side with other theists, however non-philosophical these may be.
So for all practical intents and purposes all the philosophy and common sense don't really matter when it comes to theism.

How does one learn to love that?
How does one learn to love being a Stepford Wife?

 

[lightgigantic]

Some theists might be very philosophical. But at the end of the day, they do side with other theists, however non-philosophical these may be.

on the contrary theistic traditions have a tendency to be very schismatic (even within their own schools)

So for all practical intents and purposes all the philosophy and common sense don't really matter when it comes to theism.

actually looking at the issue of philosophy is the common means to distinguish the difference between the variety of approaches to theism

How does one learn to love that?
How does one learn to love being a Stepford Wife?

In regards to learning to love anything, one has to first learn the value of it. If one cannot see any value in it (or if the values don't equate to the use of "love"), there's no chance of loving it ... which explains why not even varnasrama (what to speak of stepford wivery) offers a designation of "love"

 

[Lori_7]

For one, they are the ones who talk about God (the most).

i've noticed over the years that it seems like the more stupid people are, the more they run their mouths. have you noticed that too?

there's also something called "taking the lord's name in vain". and it's a real turnoff.

For two, as I admit that I do not know the truth about God, I have to allow for the possibility that anyone could be a representative of God.
Logically, I see no way around that.

even YOU? now THAT is logical.

 

[Lori_7]

Some theists might be very philosophical. But at the end of the day, they do side with other theists, however non-philosophical these may be.
So for all practical intents and purposes all the philosophy and common sense don't really matter when it comes to theism.

How does one learn to love that?
How does one learn to love being a Stepford Wife?

this is very judgmental, particularly coming from someone who admittedly does not know god.

 

[wynn]

on the contrary theistic traditions have a tendency to be very schismatic (even within their own schools)

Do devotees not stick together, simply because they are devotees, regardless how unphilosophical or philosophical they are?

 

[wynn]

this is very judgmental, particularly coming from someone who admittedly does not know god.

What do you mean is judgmental?

Generally, the way theists present theism to me is that to me, it looks like I am supposed to become a Stepford Wife / robot / drooling idiot and that I am supposed to look forward to being one.

 

[Lori_7]

What do you mean is judgmental?

Generally, the way theists present theism to me is that to me, it looks like I am supposed to become a Stepford Wife / robot / drooling idiot and that I am supposed to look forward to being one.

my guess is that this is your interpretation of what they present, and not what they actually present.

that certainly is in no way shape or form what i have conveyed about my own experience to you.

 

[wynn]

my guess is that this is your interpretation of what they present, and not what they actually present.
that certainly is in no way shape or form what i have conveyed about my own experience to you.

Back to "P is true. You think it is false because you are in delusion. You must therefore accept P." then ...

 

[Lori_7]

Back to "P is true. You think it is false because you are in delusion. You must therefore accept P." then ...

You don't have to accept jack shit signal. Listen to what I'm saying and have been saying...

God is the one holding the mirror, and if you continue to look elsewhere you will never see.

 

[wynn]

Lori, as far as I know, you are not actually a functioning member of a congregation. You are basically a "lone ranger Christian" with a few friends whom you share with.
You seem to have a blanket negative view of all organized religion.
It's just you, God, and a few other people here and then, but nobody who would really challenge you in your convictions.
I suppose that makes it easy for you to talk the way you do.

I dare you to survive in an actual community of fellow believers.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori, as far as I know, you are not actually a functioning member of a congregation. You are basically a "lone ranger Christian" with a few friends whom you share with.
You seem to have a blanket negative view of all organized religion.
It's just you, God, and a few other people here and then, but nobody who would really challenge you in your convictions.
I suppose that makes it easy for you to talk the way you do.

I dare you to survive in an actual community of fellow believers.

you did ask for philosphy.

god challenges me signal. do you know why god does that? so that one day i can commune entirely with god and the church.

i reiterate...religion is a cheap substitute for a relationship with god. i'm not seeking indoctrination. i'm not seeking a cult. i'm seeking god, and i have found god.

now then, how's religion been working for you signal? because you're turning into a real broken record.

 

[wynn]

I don't think you understand my problem, Lori.
I presume LG is capable to understand it, but he continually refuses to do so. We've been at this point several times before, and so far, he has always backed out at the crucial moment.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't think you understand my problem, Lori.
I presume LG is capable to understand it, but he continually refuses to do so. We've been at this point several times before, and so far, he has always backed out at the crucial moment.

you're arguing some kind of codependent paradox.

 

[lightgigantic]

Do devotees not stick together, simply because they are devotees, regardless how unphilosophical or philosophical they are?

depends what you mean by stick together, and also what you mean by devotee ... and its more that one uses the philosophy (along with one's common sense) to determine who or to what degree one is a devotee and a suitable level of "sticking" to them

 

[wynn]

depends what you mean by stick together, and also what you mean by devotee ... and its more that one uses the philosophy (along with one's common sense) to determine who or to what degree one is a devotee and a suitable level of "sticking" to them

Sure, such common-sense concerns seem perfectly in place.

But have you ever witnessed how one or a few persons in church/temple, openly and severely criticize someone, a present or absent member or some outsider - and nobody in the congregation says anything in the criticized person's defense, moreover, even adds to the criticism? And such things go on and on?
While at the same time, these are the people who are the living representatives of the theology that is said to be the supreme one (and which one therefore aspires to follow or should aspire to follow), so in order to make spiritual progress, one has to subject oneself to them, or make no progress. This is a most troubling predicament.


Moreover, how can I trust that you will not turn against me, siding with those who are against me?
There are devotees, people, who do in roundabout the same things as you do - they chant the same mantra, worship God by the same name and form, they subscribe to the same theology as you do and so on. And they think very little of me. How can I trust that one day, you won't simply side with them, forgetting and foregoing everything you have previously said about philosophy, common sense, and "God's mercy being achievable to the degree that one can recognize and interact with His parts and parcels"?

 

[Lori_7]

so in order to make spiritual progress, one has to subject oneself to them, or make no progress. This is a most troubling predicament.

this is entirely incorrect. you don't subject yourself to men, but to god.