Why worship an imperfect God?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
heliocentric
the result of applying oneself to the process of learning is that one comes to the platform of direct perception and verification. (after 4 years of uni one is in a position to verify the claims of physics)
In other words faith that is not capable of being verified is never the conclusive platform of knowledge, theism included.
Initially however, one must apply faith to the preliminary requirements, which in the case of theism is scripture and saintly persons.
Therefore teh whole struggle of logic and rationality vs theism does not result in the perception of god - it results in the application of processes of knowledge that enable such perception
When one has finished with morality however it is not that one becomes a debauchee with a guilt free conscious. One becomes concerned with how to develop spontaneous love for god rather than just doing things because one "should" "must" or "has to"
“
Do you demand that doctors validate the claims of archeologists?
Or do you demand archeologists?
its the same with nay field of knowledge - the first step is always faith (or inductive knowledge as some feel more comfortable calling it) - without having faith in the value/credibility of knowledge, no one would be inspired to undergo the austerities of learning it (if you thought physics was a load of BS you wouldn't spend 4 years studying it at uni)
the result of applying oneself to the process of learning is that one comes to the platform of direct perception and verification. (after 4 years of uni one is in a position to verify the claims of physics)
In other words faith that is not capable of being verified is never the conclusive platform of knowledge, theism included.
Initially however, one must apply faith to the preliminary requirements, which in the case of theism is scripture and saintly persons.
Therefore teh whole struggle of logic and rationality vs theism does not result in the perception of god - it results in the application of processes of knowledge that enable such perception
hopefully we don't have to do too many experiments in regard to rape and murder
if a parent tells the child that the fire is hot, but they touch it anyway, they would not have learnt anything new if they had accepted the advice in the beginning
morality is only important in the mundane sphere - in other words for as long as one has material desires, morality has an important part to play.
When one has finished with morality however it is not that one becomes a debauchee with a guilt free conscious. One becomes concerned with how to develop spontaneous love for god rather than just doing things because one "should" "must" or "has to"
“
why do you demand that religion not be validated by its foundation?
Do you demand that doctors validate the claims of archeologists?
Or do you demand archeologists?
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Its faith based, i can agree with that.
Although obviously the difference with science is once you learn the lingo and how the various models interact you can blow any kind of faith you might have had out of the water - infact science encourages it.
Not sure what you mean here..
Imagine a child that did everything they were told to do/told not to do by their parents - do you think this child would be well rounded and grow up to be experienced and wise?
Im not championing disobdience for the sake of it mind you, rather morality is experience based, you cant coerce someone into being 'moral' via threats/rewards, morality simply doesnt work that way.
Thats assuming there *is* any afterlife atall, if there isnt morality is pretty much all we have to seperate us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Well religion doesnt validate or seek to test its own claims either way - so the point is moot really.
heliocentric
so there are many normative things in the scriptures which help establish a theoretical framework, but ultimately the choice is ours
BG 18.63: Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.
God telling us what is and isnt moral and us simply following in blind obience would seem like noone is getting anything out of the equation.
seems to suggest that you were working with the concept that god is an actual entity who's claims are credible
My point is that mundane piety (soup kitchens for the needy etc) is not the summit of religious principles.
the summit is to actually have spontaneous love for god (oiutside of the pressings of one "has to" "shoul" "must" love god)
“
you can't however test the nature of perception, which is th elimit of empiricism (you can't see what you are seeing with)
hopefully it shoul d be enough to hear that rape and murder are not elevated activities of civilisation, rather than going through the empirical process to discover it for oneself
if the parents instruction was true and meant only for establishing the theoretical base of the child's knowledge, yes.
morals and values ar etaught by the teacher drawing it out of the student, rather than the teacher laying it on the student - before one can examine morals however, one must have a firm theoretical base - for instance, suppose we were discussing whether we should set our house on fire (a value based supposition) - such a discsussion could only take place if one was aware of the nature of fire, how it spreads etc.
so there are many normative things in the scriptures which help establish a theoretical framework, but ultimately the choice is ours
BG 18.63: Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.
my response to your post
God telling us what is and isnt moral and us simply following in blind obience would seem like noone is getting anything out of the equation.
seems to suggest that you were working with the concept that god is an actual entity who's claims are credible
My point is that mundane piety (soup kitchens for the needy etc) is not the summit of religious principles.
the summit is to actually have spontaneous love for god (oiutside of the pressings of one "has to" "shoul" "must" love god)
“
its not clear why you assert that religion doesn't seek to test its claims
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Those are moral absolutes youre (sort-of) straw-manning me there, everyone can agree that rape and murder are wrong on the whole.
Im talking about the finer points of moral judgement, for example - the ethical treatment of animals, or how much we should consume and how much we should give to those in need - both as a society and individuals.
Following a set of antiquated rules obviously isnt enough in these instances, we need to use our personal judgement.
I agree thats how it should be, however most religions invalidate themselves alot of the time by atempting to invoke a spritual reward/punsihment system just to make sure the masses conform to the decided apon standard of morality.
Actually it is, the spiritual underpinning of any religion isnt how many low-vibes you can beam out to god, its how you treat those around you.
I think its a terrible shame the amount of people on this planet wasting their love on their chosen diety, when there isnt even enough love to go round this planet.
Fantasing about how much you love god i can assure you doesnt make you pious atall in comparison to an individual working his arse off to help his fellow man. Anyone can daydream, living by your principles takes hard work and guts.
Why does god need all this love anyway? how do we know when he has enough, is he stockpiling it all? surely since hes the biggest boy in the school yard we should make sure everyone else has enough love before tending to his needs, no?
Because it doesnt, i think youre confusing religion with science, or using the rhetoric of science of to describe religion - which in these kind of instances doesnt really translate.
I wouldn't want to worship a perfect God. I would want a God with free will and emotions, not a robot.
This reminds me of the scene in Sphere when the psychologist is deeply troubled by the message sent by the supernatural being in the sphere when he says "I am happy". When his collegues ask him why, he says that he'd be much happier if Jerry (the alien) had no emotions at all because, "What happens when Jerry gets mad?". It's a terrifying prospect.
Dirtywhite
Registered Member
As a former deeply committed Christian I can see where some of this confusion is coming from. I will try to explain not that I expect it will make much difference but who knows...
The confusion exists because you read "Sin" and think the ten commandments or more precisely the breaking thereof e.g. Murder Adultery, etc.
That is not always true.
Sin is not just a willful action, that willful action is only the result of sin, the inevitable result of separation from God. When Adam and eve screwed up in the garden of eden there was a loss a spiritual death that occurred but also a physical corruption. Being cut off from God, their source of eternal life, they became mortal subject to death. Then they started having kids, kids who had never know any connection to God the prerequisite for sinlessness, who had mortal sin filled parents and hence who had no eternal life. Obviously the children had no choice because the parents where "diseased" and the children recieved the disease from the parents.
Fair? No but then it was never a judgment but rather a consequence that God bemoaned on many occasions. So God now has a growing and expanding problem a cancer in every single human be even if their actions are perfect because they are still corrupted. He has a dilemma, he loves and cares for these wonderful beings hes created but at the same time he is repulsed by what they have become (sinners) and they are actively rebelling, doing things he hates (Sin) and hating him for their misery.
So God has two problems the disease he has to cure and the hatred of man. He can cure the disease for all (and he wants to), but if they become eternal again and still rebel against him, hes facing a eternal pain in the ass rather than just a temporary one. Yet he wants as many people as possible to love him, people who can live with without fighting them all the time. So he resolves to act in a way that sorts the rebels from the repentant. After all if had an fight and feud with a loved one wouldn't you want it resolved and at least a sorry before you let them move back in?
In fact you'd want a damned sight more that just a sorry wouldn't you? You'd want broken things replaced, you'd want some indication they had changed their behavior. Well so does God, he wants us back but hes not willing to be walked over either, he also knows we could never "pay for the things we've broken", the damage our sin does to others, the cumulative effect over time.
BTW thats what pisses God of most our sins hurting others that he loves, thats why he gets angry. So he said "Love your neighbor as your yourself" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law".
So anyway he decides well he can pay the debt (read forgive) at a later date but to stop those who would abuse it and stab him in the back, he institutes a system of sacrifices to prove who is really ready to pay a price to sacrifice a belonging. Understand spilling the blood of an animal doesn't get your sin forgiven. Ok that placates God somewhat is all, you're not doing it to get God mad its just a result of your disease... Its cool for now. Obviously tho the disease still needs to be dealt with... which will be done later. You all know the story of the cross, How the sinless dies for the sinful, allowing god to forgive or cover over the sin and when God looks at one who accepted Jesus christ he sees Christ not sin and how christ wrote the check for the sin of the world allowing that to be nullified and for God to accept humanity. Allowing him at the end to destroy the disease and give us new bodies to live life in but of course he won't do that if your just going to misuse it.
Excuse me but its mid night and I need my sleep... If you have any further questions its in the bible.
The confusion exists because you read "Sin" and think the ten commandments or more precisely the breaking thereof e.g. Murder Adultery, etc.
That is not always true.
Sin is not just a willful action, that willful action is only the result of sin, the inevitable result of separation from God. When Adam and eve screwed up in the garden of eden there was a loss a spiritual death that occurred but also a physical corruption. Being cut off from God, their source of eternal life, they became mortal subject to death. Then they started having kids, kids who had never know any connection to God the prerequisite for sinlessness, who had mortal sin filled parents and hence who had no eternal life. Obviously the children had no choice because the parents where "diseased" and the children recieved the disease from the parents.
Fair? No but then it was never a judgment but rather a consequence that God bemoaned on many occasions. So God now has a growing and expanding problem a cancer in every single human be even if their actions are perfect because they are still corrupted. He has a dilemma, he loves and cares for these wonderful beings hes created but at the same time he is repulsed by what they have become (sinners) and they are actively rebelling, doing things he hates (Sin) and hating him for their misery.
So God has two problems the disease he has to cure and the hatred of man. He can cure the disease for all (and he wants to), but if they become eternal again and still rebel against him, hes facing a eternal pain in the ass rather than just a temporary one. Yet he wants as many people as possible to love him, people who can live with without fighting them all the time. So he resolves to act in a way that sorts the rebels from the repentant. After all if had an fight and feud with a loved one wouldn't you want it resolved and at least a sorry before you let them move back in?
In fact you'd want a damned sight more that just a sorry wouldn't you? You'd want broken things replaced, you'd want some indication they had changed their behavior. Well so does God, he wants us back but hes not willing to be walked over either, he also knows we could never "pay for the things we've broken", the damage our sin does to others, the cumulative effect over time.
BTW thats what pisses God of most our sins hurting others that he loves, thats why he gets angry. So he said "Love your neighbor as your yourself" and "Love is the fulfillment of the law".
So anyway he decides well he can pay the debt (read forgive) at a later date but to stop those who would abuse it and stab him in the back, he institutes a system of sacrifices to prove who is really ready to pay a price to sacrifice a belonging. Understand spilling the blood of an animal doesn't get your sin forgiven. Ok that placates God somewhat is all, you're not doing it to get God mad its just a result of your disease... Its cool for now. Obviously tho the disease still needs to be dealt with... which will be done later. You all know the story of the cross, How the sinless dies for the sinful, allowing god to forgive or cover over the sin and when God looks at one who accepted Jesus christ he sees Christ not sin and how christ wrote the check for the sin of the world allowing that to be nullified and for God to accept humanity. Allowing him at the end to destroy the disease and give us new bodies to live life in but of course he won't do that if your just going to misuse it.
Excuse me but its mid night and I need my sleep... If you have any further questions its in the bible.
So basically, he's saving "sinners" from himself. It's a sweet little con game I suppose. Instill fear, threaten violence, then formulate a "plan" to save them from the horrible place of hell (a place he created) and then actually be praised and thanked for doing it and come out looking like a hero.
this thread is retarded. just because we're born sinners does not mean that god is imperfect. we're born sinners for a reason. so we can learn about the effects of sin, and if you're not retarded, eventually choose to live without it when given the opportunity. we're not always going to be this way, and the ones who desire to face judgement and repent will be reborn and live forever.
So basically, he's saving "sinners" from himself. It's a sweet little con game I suppose. Instill fear, threaten violence, then formulate a "plan" to save them from the horrible place of hell (a place he created) and then actually be praised and thanked for doing it and come out looking like a hero.
because of our sin and our reluctance to face judgement and repent of it, we live in a hell right now, but those people are so blind they don't see a problem with it. god doesn't threaten violence, we are violent, because we are afraid.
Sorry to be a party pooper but I can explain things that people who are into god are not ready for.
I guess we also have to gauge the immense benefits from following your teachings too to make a fair comparison ....
The Biblical God set man up to be a sinner and for all generations to come, be born as sinners. Sinners!roflmao!
You know, if you truly believe that we are here to learn, why must there be a consequence of hell for eternity? Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy do you honestly think the Biblical God created laws which are to send non believers/non followers to be tortured as a consequence??? I mean think about it, if you were judged in school and did not receive grades according to how well you learned, but rather eternal torment if you got anything below an A...that's nothing short of ABUSE and where the fuck is the learning in that? Seriously? It's a little extreme, don't you think? The Biblical God is all about violence, Lori. But because I agreed not to pull out those scriptures anymore, you'll just have to trust your memory to get what I'm driving at.
Last edited:
*************
M*W: In all sincerity, Lori, how do you know that "We're born sinners," except for the bible and your religion? That is such a hopeless thought. This is one reason I cannot believe in a creator God because, IMO, if there were a god it makes no sense that he/she/it created is as faulty beings.
You are taking the idea of "sin" way too literally. Sin equals the absense of light and/or darkness... as in the night. The nighttime was a scary occasion for ancient peoples (who didn't know any better).
In all reality, I think Adstar is the only one who is looking forward to his judgment. Unfortunately, there is no such thing. I'm sure he will be disappointed that he's simply going to become worm food.
Being "born again" sounds to me like reincarnation. Our genes may continue to survive, but our physical bodies won't.
I would like for you to answer a question for me: Without your bible and religion (or faith), why is important to you that you believe we are all born as sinners? If that were the case, the human race would have died out many millenia ago. (Lori, in case you haven't noticed, we're still here).
Let me say "wow" it's been 15 months or so since posting the OP and since then so much learning and observations have taken place.
It is nice to revisit this old topic again I must admit.
There are many ways of approaching this issue and yet you know ..... all approaches lead to the same thing and are ultimately just "rightway" as each other....just a different path leading to the same conclusion..
To resolve the debate would IMO take many many pages of many many words and desciptions and dismantling of many many pre-conceptions. So steeped our beliefs are in societal conditioning and so cryptic, confused and some times deliberately ambiguous are the messages we seem to tell each other....
We have both material fact and conclusions drawn from those material facts. we have also beliefs based on those material facts as we know them. So in philosophy we have the same debate about subjectivity and objectivity relating to reality and imagination and how "persuasive" our imaginings can be unto ourselves.
Fact is:
Mankind has had a serious history of war amongst ourselves.
Mankind still fails on average to develop significant and enduring relationships with each other.
Individuals live in a state of isolation and conflict with their environment as a rule and not an exception.
If one looks at the self determination paradox; "we can not all do or have the same thing at the same time" even though we may want that thing.
For an example of the paradox:
John wants to use a particular chair at an auditorium to listen to his favourite speaker.
Jim also wants to use that same chair to sit in however because he is a little slower than John [ leg infury from an earlier car accident]
John sees Jim and smiles contentedly at his success at getting to the chair first and Jim swears to himself to try harder to be early next time.
So in this example both persons have an unalienable right to the same chair. Both are born with absolute devine perogative: [ intro concept #1 ]
Assuming that John is not specially priviledged by the auditorium [ reserved seating][discrimination]
John and Jim could be considered to be in a [ friendly? hmmmm ] contest over who has the right to the seat. Obviously it is determined by who is fastest, strongest, smartest, [etc] and circumstances beyond boths control.
Both could be considered as "Gods" in their own right limited by the determination and actions of other individual Gods.
So much so are they limited by other gods[esses] actions that they are merely human men/women fighting over a damn seat in an auditorium.
Proposition:
All self-animated life forms are born with absolute devine perogative or more precisely "absolute free will " however by virtue of being born they are immediately being subjegated to a life of oppression due to the fact that there are many other entities with the same identicle absolute freewill.
Thus every baby is born a "sinner" as their very attempt to live, exist [ even as an innocent baby wanted by their parents] is a act against the freedom of others. [refer to neighbours getting upset because the baby cries at night]
So basically if you start every action with a "please forgive me..." you are attempting to inspire agreement in the form of compassion in your society.
We are all apologists and we are all seeking forgiveness all the time to achieve a certain peace or harmony.
It is impossible to make a decision that does not in some way violate someone elses decision. So this means that we are constantly "sinning" against another "God"
I have always held the view that religion has been not only a tool used to control the masses but a way that humans cryptically attempt to understand their very natures.
The idea of Man born in Gods image, the garden of eden story etc etc are all about becoming aware of our true natures IMO.
Now as to the notion of a montheistic God one can see that if humanity actually learned to work together with out conflict or violation as one we have the abuility to be a culminant human God in this sector of the universe. A concordance of will and freedom....
So every time you accidently bump into someone you are confirming that you are a sinner and naturally you seek an apology "oops...excuse me!"
[assuming your of normal or everage character disposition]
unlikely hey?
The perfection in the trade of "absolute freedoms" is the ambition. The more successful you are at trading your absolute devine perogative [ prostitution ] the more successful you are at getting what you want.
John sells his right to the seat for $10 to Jim.
So the perfect God is one who can trade perfectly...I guess....
It is nice to revisit this old topic again I must admit.
There are many ways of approaching this issue and yet you know ..... all approaches lead to the same thing and are ultimately just "rightway" as each other....just a different path leading to the same conclusion..
To resolve the debate would IMO take many many pages of many many words and desciptions and dismantling of many many pre-conceptions. So steeped our beliefs are in societal conditioning and so cryptic, confused and some times deliberately ambiguous are the messages we seem to tell each other....
We have both material fact and conclusions drawn from those material facts. we have also beliefs based on those material facts as we know them. So in philosophy we have the same debate about subjectivity and objectivity relating to reality and imagination and how "persuasive" our imaginings can be unto ourselves.
Fact is:
Mankind has had a serious history of war amongst ourselves.
Mankind still fails on average to develop significant and enduring relationships with each other.
Individuals live in a state of isolation and conflict with their environment as a rule and not an exception.
If one looks at the self determination paradox; "we can not all do or have the same thing at the same time" even though we may want that thing.
For an example of the paradox:
John wants to use a particular chair at an auditorium to listen to his favourite speaker.
Jim also wants to use that same chair to sit in however because he is a little slower than John [ leg infury from an earlier car accident]
John sees Jim and smiles contentedly at his success at getting to the chair first and Jim swears to himself to try harder to be early next time.
So in this example both persons have an unalienable right to the same chair. Both are born with absolute devine perogative: [ intro concept #1 ]
Assuming that John is not specially priviledged by the auditorium [ reserved seating][discrimination]
John and Jim could be considered to be in a [ friendly? hmmmm ] contest over who has the right to the seat. Obviously it is determined by who is fastest, strongest, smartest, [etc] and circumstances beyond boths control.
Both could be considered as "Gods" in their own right limited by the determination and actions of other individual Gods.
So much so are they limited by other gods[esses] actions that they are merely human men/women fighting over a damn seat in an auditorium.
Proposition:
All self-animated life forms are born with absolute devine perogative or more precisely "absolute free will " however by virtue of being born they are immediately being subjegated to a life of oppression due to the fact that there are many other entities with the same identicle absolute freewill.
Thus every baby is born a "sinner" as their very attempt to live, exist [ even as an innocent baby wanted by their parents] is a act against the freedom of others. [refer to neighbours getting upset because the baby cries at night]
So basically if you start every action with a "please forgive me..." you are attempting to inspire agreement in the form of compassion in your society.
We are all apologists and we are all seeking forgiveness all the time to achieve a certain peace or harmony.
It is impossible to make a decision that does not in some way violate someone elses decision. So this means that we are constantly "sinning" against another "God"
I have always held the view that religion has been not only a tool used to control the masses but a way that humans cryptically attempt to understand their very natures.
The idea of Man born in Gods image, the garden of eden story etc etc are all about becoming aware of our true natures IMO.
Now as to the notion of a montheistic God one can see that if humanity actually learned to work together with out conflict or violation as one we have the abuility to be a culminant human God in this sector of the universe. A concordance of will and freedom....
So every time you accidently bump into someone you are confirming that you are a sinner and naturally you seek an apology "oops...excuse me!"
[assuming your of normal or everage character disposition]
unlikely hey?
The perfection in the trade of "absolute freedoms" is the ambition. The more successful you are at trading your absolute devine perogative [ prostitution ] the more successful you are at getting what you want.
John sells his right to the seat for $10 to Jim.
So the perfect God is one who can trade perfectly...I guess....
*************
M*W: I'm sorry. I just can't understand the concept of "hell right now."
It's been well documented in the bible just how violent your god is. I'm confused as to why you are denying that now?
What are we "afraid" of if there is a perfect god, and we have the opportunity to repent our sins, and face judgment before him if we live in "hell right now," what is the point of the whole concept you presented? Please explain.
Thanx,
M*W
i've told you a million times that i think people choose to stay in hell because they refuse to see the truth about their sin, which is judgement, and choose to repent, which means to want to change. and jesus is the way to change.