About blaming God.

[Windwalker]

I will curse God for suffering when atheists praise Him for children and rainbows.

This makes no rational sense. If you see atheists adopt your deity form to give thanks to for good things in life, you'll get angry and curse God? Does that threaten your favored status position with the Almighty, or something?

 

[Koldo]

No it is not. Karma is another word for inherent consequences, whether direct or indirect. It's the principle of of "you reap what you sow". That's natural. Not supernatural.

Depends on how you use the word karma.
There is generally an underlying premise when it comes down to karma: that either something is keeping track of who does what or that bad actions inherently bring about suffering to the one that perform them. None of which are part of the natural world.

 

[Sandra Jayne]

That won't work in the schools of Buddhism I personally know, and I don't know if it works for any other schools of Buddhism, but there are several reasons why it might seem right for some people in Christianity.

Many things are usually claimed for the Christian God ─ that [he]'s omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfect and benevolent. But as the Epicurean school of philosophy more or less put it centuries BCE, in relation to another deity,

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is God both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?​

'The problem of pain' is another one of the names for that problem. Let me put it this way:

If I, being present and aware, could prevent death or serious injury to an ordinary fellow-human, then I'd try to do so, perhaps even at risk to myself.

So the idea of God looking inertly on while innocent people come to harm is 3D incompatible with benevolence. Where, God, were your omnipotence and omniscience and omnipresence and benevolence when the very worthy, decent and kind human X met an untimely death?

That's not quite the same thing as blaming God for misfortune one might personally suffer, but the parallel is strong.

I'm doing a degree in philosophy so I have come across this previously and although I am not sure if there is a God I have studied scripture and really it is because people don't understand what God is saying, the reason for His non-intervention and His promise for the future.

For the sake of argument let us assume the scriptures is the word of God.

You are God, you are omnipotent (leave omniscience to one side for now because there is evidence God didn't know everything mankind was going to do) Adam and Eve have rejected you so you know that humanity is heading for terrible suffering and death, what would you do?

 

[Windwalker]

Does blaming God bring satisfaction?
I think that blaming God has more to do with feeling betrayed.

Of course it doesn't. Blaming others, and even exacting vengeance against them, does not and cannot bring satisfaction. You still have to deal with your loss.

I was saying that God becomes this ultimate symbolic target of blame for that sense of a loss of control. When we run out of satisfactions blaming everyone we can name, we throw it out at the universe itself. Life is to blame. Like Ahab upon the whale,

He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.
​

 

[Windwalker]

Depends on how you use the word karma.
There is generally an underlying premise when it comes down to karma: that either something is keeping track of who does what or that bad actions inherently bring about suffering to the one that perform them. None of which are part of the natural world.

That's just anthropomorphizing a natural law, as if it has independent agency. It's typical in all religious systems where these metaphoric ways of talking about natural consequences, becomes made magical and supernatural.

I think you can have two people looking at the same thing, and one frames it with their mind as supernatural and outside of themselves, while another sees it as natural and interdependent. The former tends towards blaming the other, because it is seen as outside of their control. The latter tries to see how everything is interrelated and not outside their own agency. That then informs how they hold experiences of loss with hopefully greater acceptance.

 

[Koldo]

Of course it doesn't. Blaming others, and even exacting vengeance against them, does not and cannot bring satisfaction. You still have to deal with your loss.

I was saying that God becomes this ultimate symbolic target of blame for that sense of a loss of control. When we run out of satisfactions blaming everyone we can name, we throw it out at the universe itself. Life is to blame. Like Ahab upon the whale,

He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.
​

Curiously that is how I like it best when I read a story: when there is no one to blame, there is no villain, no enemy, other than life itself. How does the protagonist deal with the most powerful enemy there is?

 

[Koldo]

That's just anthropomorphizing a natural law, as if it has independent agency. It's typical in all religious systems where these metaphoric ways of talking about natural consequences, becomes made magical and supernatural.

I think you can have two people looking at the same thing, and one frames it with their mind as supernatural and outside of themselves, while another sees it as natural and interdependent. The former tends towards blaming the other, because it is seen as outside of their control. The latter tries to see how everything is interrelated and not outside their own agency. That then informs how they hold experiences of loss with hopefully greater acceptance.

I don't think your conclusion is granted. If anything, there is more room for blaming oneself in the latter case which helps fuel self-destructive behavior.

Anyway, the solo fact someone decides to use 'karma' rather 'cause and affect' already tends to entail they mean something extra that delves into supernatural territory, such as in 'cause and effect across reincarnations'.

 

[Windwalker]

Curiously that is how I like it best when I read a story: when there is no one to blame, there is no villain, no enemy, other than life itself. How does the protagonist deal with the most powerful enemy there is?

I agree. I think we have to come to a place of just accepting there is ultimately no one to blame and we are left with facing our loss. Blaming God seems to be one's last holdout before their letting go before simply accepting and learning to live with loss.

 

[Nimos]

The child may have carried too much karma into this life from a past life, and by this have to repay the karma, and in your scenario, it is the killer who executes the karmic reaction toward the child, the parents have also karma and will thereby suffer because of losing their child, still, this has nothing to do with God.

So how do you know that it is not the child's first life, so there ain't any past life to speak of?

So in the way you see it, God did not necessarily create us, but rather some other "past" being, spirit, soul or something, and because it had bad karma, we that are living now then have to pay the price for something, we are not even aware of, is that how it works or did I misunderstand that?

And if that is the case, why did God not make this "past" being capable of remembering past life experience, because how is murderer or psychopath that kills children suppose to learn anything from past experiences, if they apparently are not able to remember that it is wrong?

Isn't that partly God's fault, somehow? And if it is God's punishment, wouldn't it be morally correct to not punish the murderer, so we don't interfere with God's intentions, it sort of seems like going against the will of God?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think your conclusion is granted. If anything, there is more room for blaming oneself in the latter case which helps fuel self-destructive behavior.

If we are blaming ourselves, that's really just another form of blaming. It's just internalized blame rather than externalized. It's still not acceptance. It's not actually accepting responsibility. It's about judgment and condemnation and punishment.

Anyway, the solo fact someone decides to use 'karma' rather 'cause and affect' already tends to entail they mean something extra that delves into supernatural territory, such as in 'cause and effect across reincarnations'.

No, not really. While the word karma comes from cultures where reincarnation is believed, the principle applies regardless of past or future lives. If you never had a previous life, karma still applies. Even if there were no birth and rebirth, karma still applies. It's like gravity that way.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So how do you know that it is not the child's first life, so there ain't any past life to speak of?

So in the way you see it, God did not necessarily create us, but rather some other "past" being, spirit, soul or something, and because it had bad karma, we that are living now then have to pay the price for something, we are not even aware of, is that how it works or did I misunderstand that?

And if that is the case, why did God not make this "past" being capable of remembering past life experience, because how is murderer or psychopath that kills children suppose to learn anything from past experiences, if they apparently are not able to remember that it is wrong?

Isn't that partly God's fault, somehow? And if it is God's punishment, wouldn't it be morally correct to not punish the murderer, so we don't interfere with God's intentions, it sort of seems like going against the will of God?

Personally I can not know how many lives others have lived But according to the teaching I cultivate, we all have lived multiple times.
All physical beings, Animals, humans, insects, plants are all created because we are fallen beings from heavenly realms (in the way I understand it) so we are all under the same law of karma.
Some people who cultivate spiritual teaching can remember past lives. and very detailed info that can be verified too, as far as i know.

A reason human beings does not remember the "real self" is that we are deluded in attachments to this physical realm, and see this as the only truth that can be real. So when practicing cultivation teaching we un-attach to the human realm and by doing this reincarnation will end as soon we have enlightened to the truth from the teaching.

This is of course only my understanding of it, so if you speak with others, they might understand it differently then i do.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't believe in karma in the way you mean other than we are all paying for Adam's sin. From a Christian view point I don't think many people really understand what the scriptures are saying.
Once Jesus died God is not involved in anything that happens here on Earth util the allotted time and others fail to believe or acknowledge God has an adversary.
We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 1 John 5:19 NIV

I think i understand why you say what you do (and I don't say you are wrong)
Christianity and Falun Gong are two very different teachings, so yes, of course, there will be differences in what we understand

 

[Koldo]

If we are blaming ourselves, that's really just another form of blaming. It's just internalized blame rather than externalized. It's still not acceptance. It's not actually accepting responsibility. It's about judgment and condemnation and punishment.

I don't understand. Do you mean that you can't, at the same time, accept your own responsibility and blame yourself?

No, not really. While the word karma comes from cultures where reincarnation is believed, the principle applies regardless of past or future lives. If you never had a previous life, karma still applies. Even if there were no birth and rebirth, karma still applies. It's like gravity that way.

Sure. But it is not strictly used as a synonym to cause and effect. Even if one does not believe in reincarnation, they generally interpret that the universe will conspire in a way to make the wrong doer suffer. And that's not a law of nature per se, as in it has nothing to do with the natural sciences.

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder about one thing.

Why do some people blame God, Buddha, and so on, when something goes wrong in their life, or they do not understand something in a religious/spiritual setting. then they blame God for not doing the right thing for them??

Some of it may be due to how people are often conditioned to think about God. People are often told to "thank God" for anything and everything good in this world, even to the point of saying a prayer before each meal to thank God for the food we eat.

So, if we insist on giving credit to God for every good thing that happens, even small, mundane things like a daily meal, then some people might also conclude that God must also be to blame for the bad things - especially things that are outside of human control.

Even those who wouldn't directly "blame" God might still attribute these unfortunate events to God, while portraying it as being done "for a reason" because God has some kind of "divine grand plan" which humans can't understand.

 

[blü 2]

I'm doing a degree in philosophy

I hugely enjoyed tertiary philosophy so I hope you do as well.

although I am not sure if there is a God I have studied scripture and really it is because people don't understand what God is saying, the reason for His non-intervention and His promise for the future.

Indeed, we can watch the evolution of God across the Tanakh, into the NT and finally to the Trinity in the 4th century. As you're doubtless aware, Yahweh first appears in history around 1500 BCE as an apparently typical Canaanite god and a typical consort Asherah. In the Torah he's one such tribal God out loud eg

Judges 11:23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.
​

and also Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 82:1, 86:8, 95:3, 135:5 &c.

Then from the Babylonian Captivity and after he's a monogod (which is why he says things like ─

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things
​

The argument is available that the most important part of the NT is Paul's abandonment of the covenant, not just circumcision but the idea that Christianity is for all. Christianity got off the ground among the pagans of the Roman empire, and never attained a significant Jewish contingent; and it notably relies on Greek culture rather than Hebrew . For example, the Jesus of Mark is the only Jesus to be born an ordinary Jew and to become the son of God by adoption on the model of Psalm 2:7 (affirmed at Acts 13:33); The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe, very like the gnostic demiurge (a Greek idea); while the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke were conceived of a god, as happens a lot in Greek story, and were born with God's Y-chromosome.

Then in the fourth century the early church solves its internal political problems by turning Jesus into God by devising the doctrine of the Trinity ─ this despite each of the five Jesuses of the NT separately and expressly denying he's God and never once claiming to be.

For the sake of argument let us assume the scriptures is the word of God.

You are God, you are omnipotent (leave omniscience to one side for now because there is evidence God didn't know everything mankind was going to do) Adam and Eve have rejected you so you know that humanity is heading for terrible suffering and death, what would you do?

But as I said above, God evoives before our reading eyes in the bible.

And in the Garden story, there's no point in which Adam and Eve reject God. The story is greatly distorted in Christian lore ─ just read it for what it actually says and the picture's entirely different. First, God says, 'Don't eat the fruit BECAUSE if you do, you'll die the same say.' He doesn't say 'Don't eat the fruit, because I said so. Second, the snake never says anything that's untrue or misleading. Third, when Eve bites the fruit, she's incapable of sin, because till that moment God has deliberately withheld from her the knowledge of good and evil, so she's incapable of forming an intention to do wrong. Fourth, nowhere is there mention of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, or the need for a redeemer. Fifth, God states his reason for pitching Adam and Eve out of the Garden and it's set out in Genesis 3:22:

Then the Lord God said, "behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," ─ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden [...]​

So I'm not finding the ideas you refer to in the Tanakh. The idea of the Fall is expressly contradicted by eg Ezekiel 18 passim, eg

20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.​

It doesn't arise until the latter 2nd century BCE in Alexandria, where it appears to be the product of the Midrash tradition.

So if I'm the God of the bible, I'm devising new ideas of myself and my job all the time.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. But it is not strictly used as a synonym to cause and effect. Even if one does not believe in reincarnation, they generally interpret that the universe will conspire in a way to make the wrong doer suffer. And that's not a law of nature per se, as in it has nothing to do with the natural sciences.

I would agree with this. It's like how some people say "what goes around, comes around," but that's just a platitude, not a physical law of the universe.

 

[Nimos]

Personally I can not know how many lives others have lived But according to the teaching I cultivate, we all have lived multiple times.
All physical beings, Animals, humans, insects, plants are all created because we are fallen beings from heavenly realms (in the way I understand it) so we are all under the same law of karma.
Some people who cultivate spiritual teaching can remember past lives. and very detailed info that can be verified too, as far as i know.

A reason human beings does not remember the "real self" is that we are deluded in attachments to this physical realm, and see this as the only truth that can be real. So when practicing cultivation teaching we un-attach to the human realm and by doing this reincarnation will end as soon we have enlightened to the truth from the teaching.

This is of course only my understanding of it, so if you speak with others, they might understand it differently then i do.

But isn't that a bit like dodging the hard questions or maybe not even trying to seek them to begin with?

If we are fallen beings from a non physical realm, then why the need for a physical realm in the first place?

Also at some point it must be the first time, it needs to have a beginning, if one claim that it is "multiple times"?

 

[Spirit of Light]

But isn't that a bit like dodging the hard questions or maybe not even trying to seek them to begin with?

If we are fallen beings from a non physical realm, then why the need for a physical realm in the first place?

Also at some point it must be the first time, it needs to have a beginning, if one claim that it is "multiple times"?

1: Why do you mean its dodging the questions?
2: This realm is created for us to actually feel suffering and be able to repay our karma, but we keep making mistakes here too so we create more karma too.
3: This world (earth) we live in is not the first universe and earth human beings have inhabited. there have been many earths before this one (in my understanding)

 

[Thief]

I wonder about one thing.

Why do some people blame God, Buddha, and so on, when something goes wrong in their life, or they do not understand something in a religious/spiritual setting. then they blame God for not doing the right thing for them??

God gave Man dominion

 

[Windwalker]

I don't understand. Do you mean that you can't, at the same time, accept your own responsibility and blame yourself?

I realize this is somewhat of a semantic argument, but the connotation of the word "blame" typically carries the sense of assigning guilt, shame, and condemnation with it. "It was his fault", makes everyone blameless, and condemns the guilty. Self-blame is typically self-condemnation. "It's my fault. I'm a bad person", is that inner judge. It's a voice developed in early childhood, where the child assumes blame for things that happen to them, such as blaming themselves for mom and dad's divorce. Adults carry this with them in their lives in different situations, and it operates at a very subtle, hidden level which eats away at one's self-worth.

Taking self-responsibility is actually productive and is different than self-blame. Taking responsibility for one's actions typically does not bring condemnation along with it. It brings self-acceptance, which tends to be realistic and healing. "I made a mistake and accept responsibility for that error", is a very different mental attitude than, "It's all my fault. I am a bad person. Blame me". In reality, the latter is not truly accepting responsibility. It simply misuses it for self-abusive. It's not about taking responsibility. It's about assigning blame and condemning someone still, in this case their own self.

Sure. But it is not strictly used as a synonym to cause and effect. Even if one does not believe in reincarnation, they generally interpret that the universe will conspire in a way to make the wrong doer suffer.

Not exactly. Rather than seeing a direct cause and effect relationship, it also entails indirect consequences. It's much more compatible with chaos theory in this way. Unintended and unforeseen consequences are encompassed by it. But that is not about the universe conspiring against you, as an active agent with yourself the intended target at its mercy. That's very much tied into the Christian notion of a vengeful deity who will right wrongs by punishing evil-doers.

Rather I would think of it more like natural buoyancy in an ocean. If someone carries the weight of wrongdoing in their lives, that affects their buoyancy and they sink lower in the water towards the sea floor where all the death and decay collects. If they get rid of the weight of wrongdoing, then they naturally rise in the water towards the surface to where the light of the sun penetrates and gives life. It's not a matter of the ocean "paying you back", rather it is purely natural consequences. If you put rocks in your pockets, you will sink. God didn't do that to you.

Western thought conditions us to think of these in dualist terms, rather than seeing that we are part of that ocean and we either work with its natural conditions, or we resist it and fail to thrive within it. When we don't, there are consequences. It's just a recognition of what works, and what does not in order to live our lives free from suffering.

And that's not a law of nature per se, as in it has nothing to do with the natural sciences.

One can argue it is in fact a law of Nature, with a capital N. But that's not something the natural sciences investigates. It's more than just examining physics.