• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do you forgive (the Abrahamic) God?

Do you forgive the Abrahamic God?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 85.0%

  • Total voters
    20

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I think you've misunderstood. It depends where the bar is set. Obviously I can't design a whole world for you here, but as examples, injuries that caused a lot of pain and disability for months would still exist, but they would heal. Plenty of reason to avoid whatever caused it, surely? A condition that caused severe pain with no hope of remission followed by death, no.

See above about "nothing truly bad". Being anxious about possibilities teaches us to plan to avoid them.

No more than they are now. You're assuming you are the same but some external influence controls you. I'm sure you wouldn't torture an an innocent person for fun but some people would. Neither of you is controlled, you are both behaving according to your nature. Everyone would be like you, that's all.

The question of our bodies is different. I imagine some adjustments would be necessary to eliminate certain "really bad" diseases and so on. They wouldn't be externally controlled though.

You mean that art that is inspired by tragedy wouldn't exist? That's a small price to pay to get rid of the tragedy.

Our propensity to do "bad" things would be reduced. Which things are bad is a different matter and would be determined by the creator.

This raises something I hadn't considered, suicide. I believe we have the right to end our lives if we choose, by whatever method we choose. Would that still apply? To your question, I don't think giving us total immunity from the results of our actions is a good thing. Hopefully our enhanced intelligence would avoid much of this and the reduction in bad treatment by others would help too. I guess if you want to harm yourself you would allowed to, and suffer the consequences. This is a better world not a perfect one.

Not at all. A couple of years ago I was diagnosed with bladder cancer (now totally in remission). The symptoms involved no pain, but prompted me to go the my doctor.

See my answer above concerning control.


I think I've covered this. No we would have emotions as appropriate, not feel great all the time. It wouldn't be a full emotional range, because it would limit things like irrational fear, clinical depression and pathological hatred. Do you really want those things? There would be plenty of emotion left.

Let me sum up by saying that I'm mostly not introducing anything new. Good people already exist, it's not impossible. Likewise intelligent people and healthy people.

I appreciate what you're saying. And you ARE making it better. But these things aren't going to prevent people from being angry with God. Any death, any illness, any suffering, any unfairness at all and some people will complain. And certainly if God is forcing people to behave in a certain way, there's no way everyone is going to agree about what those things should be. Sure, God waving its magical wand and, poof, no murder would be good. But it would never be good enough.

I'm swinging for the fences. I'm looking for an omni-benevolent deity. And I think I found it. But just as your approach doesn't require perfection, neither does mine. All that's needed are good reasons for things to be the way they are. I think those reasons exist and I understand them. There's a lot of peace of mind that comes along with that, as well as awe, and wonder. There's also pleasure that comes from figuring it out. ( Granted it will be a huge dissapointment if I die and find out I was completely wrong. )

But as I have mentioned in the past, it could be that the world you are describing does exist somewhere. And maybe it is better than what we have here. And maybe there are many many different worlds, some much better, some much worse. In the world where we exist, there is an opportunity to make sense of it all. And I guess I'm wondering if that would be more difficult if suffering and hardship was decreased? If relief and pleasure comes from "figuring it out", is there diminishing returns on reducing evil?

And I also wonder, what if all those worlds, from the much much better, all the way to the much much worse, are omni-benevolent in the same way? Could the same solution, the same "figuring it out" work in all those worlds? If so, God is certainly omni-benevolent! It doesn't matter how great, or how poor, each of these possible worlds is good? That would be a pretty big wow, for me.

Sure it's frustrating that people are suffering and they don't know how the peices fit together. People have a right to be angry. And yes, I know, God could wave its magic wand and implant the understanding into each person, poof. But would that be as satisfying? And yes, God could have written all the details in a holy-book somewhere, in plain language, but that also would not be as satisfying. And I honestly think people would reject it. It would be too perfect, or too simple, or too complex, or too something-or-other. It seems to me the best way, and maybe the only way, is for people to figure it out in their own way and in their own time. Not that hints and help should be discouraged. But, abra-ca-dabra, everyone gets it, is probably not a good idea either.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I appreciate what you're saying. And you ARE making it better. But these things aren't going to prevent people from being angry with God. Any death, any illness, any suffering, any unfairness at all and some people will complain. And certainly if God is forcing people to behave in a certain way, there's no way everyone is going to agree about what those things should be. Sure, God waving its magical wand and, poof, no murder would be good. But it would never be good enough.
First, thanks for the discussion. This started as a half formed idea of mine that I just threw out there and your responses have help me refine it. I'm going to change it a little and say that only human nature would be different (not changed, as it would always have been that way). And that alone would provide a huge benefit. Less crime, as people would have less inclination to do things that hurt others. Less social inequality, as people's need to amass wealth would be greatly diminished. And so on. The natural world can be as it is, so people would still be killed and injured by tornadoes, but the survivors would be treated with great kindness and fewer would be living in trailer parks. This one difference would ripple out to improve so many things.

To address what you say, people would be less inclined to blame "god' as they would be more reasonable and less inclined to look for someone to blame if something went wrong. In fact it would not be necessary for them to even have a concept of god. God could just set it up, step back and let it run, knowing that it would turn out well. And god is not forcing anything, just setting us up to run our own affairs better. It's no different form now really. God (supposedly) made us the way we are and we behave accordingly.
I'm swinging for the fences. I'm looking for an omni-benevolent deity. And I think I found it. But just as your approach doesn't require perfection, neither does mine. All that's needed are good reasons for things to be the way they are. I think those reasons exist and I understand them. There's a lot of peace of mind that comes along with that, as well as awe, and wonder. There's also pleasure that comes from figuring it out. ( Granted it will be a huge dissapointment if I die and find out I was completely wrong. )
If you are looking for a perfect world, as is implied by a 3-omni god, then I think you are describing what is called "the best of all possible worlds". The idea is that god has some unknown (to us) purpose that can only be achieved by the world being as it is. Any world with less suffering or whatever would not serve the purpose. We have to accept existence of this purpose and that it is ultimately good, not some powerful being messing around to its own benefit.

As far as being disappointed goes, I'm in a worse position, because I can never know that I am right, if I am.
But as I have mentioned in the past, it could be that the world you are describing does exist somewhere.
It does, in small restricted communities. It can exist!
And maybe it is better than what we have here. And maybe there are many many different worlds, some much better, some much worse. In the world where we exist, there is an opportunity to make sense of it all. And I guess I'm wondering if that would be more difficult if suffering and hardship was decreased? If relief and pleasure comes from "figuring it out", is there diminishing returns on reducing evil?
I think we wouldn't need to figure it out. A pretty good god has given us a pretty good life in a pretty good world. I like that.
And I also wonder, what if all those worlds, from the much much better, all the way to the much much worse, are omni-benevolent in the same way? Could the same solution, the same "figuring it out" work in all those worlds? If so, God is certainly omni-benevolent! It doesn't matter how great, or how poor, each of these possible worlds is good? That would be a pretty big wow, for me.
That doesn't make much sense to me. Please expand on it.
Sure it's frustrating that people are suffering and they don't know how the peices fit together. People have a right to be angry. And yes, I know, God could wave its magic wand and implant the understanding into each person, poof. But would that be as satisfying? And yes, God could have written all the details in a holy-book somewhere, in plain language, but that also would not be as satisfying. And I honestly think people would reject it. It would be too perfect, or too simple, or too complex, or too something-or-other. It seems to me the best way, and maybe the only way, is for people to figure it out in their own way and in their own time. Not that hints and help should be discouraged. But, abra-ca-dabra, everyone gets it, is probably not a good idea either.
Only if you value 1% of the population having a puzzle to solve higher than 99% leading a better life.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
First, thanks for the discussion. This started as a half formed idea of mine that I just threw out there and your responses have help me refine it. I'm going to change it a little and say that only human nature would be different (not changed, as it would always have been that way). And that alone would provide a huge benefit. Less crime, as people would have less inclination to do things that hurt others. Less social inequality, as people's need to amass wealth would be greatly diminished. And so on. The natural world can be as it is, so people would still be killed and injured by tornadoes, but the survivors would be treated with great kindness and fewer would be living in trailer parks. This one difference would ripple out to improve so many things.

:thumbsup:

To address what you say, people would be less inclined to blame "god' as they would be more reasonable and less inclined to look for someone to blame if something went wrong. In fact it would not be necessary for them to even have a concept of god. God could just set it up, step back and let it run, knowing that it would turn out well. And god is not forcing anything, just setting us up to run our own affairs better. It's no different form now really. God (supposedly) made us the way we are and we behave accordingly.

I agree with everything you're saying. The bold underlined part I think is important. If God is real, then there is a lot that can be accomplished/gained by having a good working relationship with it in the here and now. If God set it up, and lets it run, and people don't have any reason to reach out to God, then that's a resource that goes undeveloped. Maybe a few people would still explore divinity, but not as many.

As an atheist, it's OK to think that's a foolish pipe dream. But there have been a few in my faith tradition that have accomplished some amazing things. Even if those things haven't happened, I think it's still a possibility. We are taking about God as if its a real thing, and has real power. And if we continue with that premise, I would like to see this improved version of reality without reducing the odds of making contact with God and working with it for the benefit of everyone.

I've been avoiding mentioning this, but, if knowledge-of-good-and-evil contribute to making contact, and I think it does, then reducing evil reduces the odds of success. Obtaining that knowledge is slower or maybe becomes impossible if evil is reduced. And since I'm swinging for the fences, I want that knoweldge free and open to everyone in large quantities to increase the odds that one of us is going to make contact and encourage God to help those who need help in a way that doesn't interfere with the delicate balance of good and evil.

If you are looking for a perfect world, as is implied by a 3-omni god, then I think you are describing what is called "the best of all possible worlds".

I don't agree with that. I'm looking for a perfect God, not a perfect world.

The idea is that god has some unknown (to us) purpose that can only be achieved by the world being as it is. Any world with less suffering or whatever would not serve the purpose. We have to accept existence of this purpose and that it is ultimately good, not some powerful being messing around to its own benefit.

That ^^ I agree with.

As far as being disappointed goes, I'm in a worse position, because I can never know that I am right, if I am.

I guess that's true. :pensive:

It does, in small restricted communities. It can exist!

Really? Human nature is changed in the way you're describing? That's surprising.

I think we wouldn't need to figure it out. A pretty good god has given us a pretty good life in a pretty good world. I like that.

Sure. Maybe if God actually changed everyone's mind.

That doesn't make much sense to me. Please expand on it.

Well. This is what I'm thinking.

IMO, living a good life in an imperfect world involves managing moments. As humans, we have a really interesting capability of being able to speed up time and also slow down time. Not really speeding up and slowing down time, but the way that we experience time, the way we experience moments is facinating to me. When tragedy happens, it's like time stops. And the world collapses. And everything becomes current, and immediate, and focused. And when things are good, time speeds up. Days and weeks and months and years fly by, and before you know it the kids are grown, the house is back to empty. What happened? This even happens with a nice meal. Poof, it's gone. If I'm not careful, I barely remember that I ate it.

What if, that experience of speeding up and slowing down time can be reversed? I've been practicing with this. When something really nice is happening, I try to slow down time and really focus on each moment and stretch it out. Gratefully, I dont have a lot of tragedy in my life, but, I'm trying to prepare myself for it. And if it happens, I'm going to try to focus on the moment passing, and release it, and maybe speed up those moments.

If a person can do those things, then any good that happens is stretched out, and those moments last. And any bad that happens is reduced and passes quickly. Learning to do this can happen in two ways, either when good things happen, a person notices time speeding up, and maybe realizes that they can control how each moment is experienced. Or. It could happen when bad things happen and time slows to a screaching halt and the person realizes that they can control how each moment is experienced.

If so, then it doesn't matter if the world is just like ours, much much better than ours, or much much worse than ours, or any thing in that range. The same solution is available to all to live a good life. The good moments are stretched out to eternity, and the bad are here and gone in the bat of an eye. And this ability to shift perspective at will is no different than the ability to seize opportunity, and shift tragedy into something productive. Not that mourning isn't worthwhile. But if people can learn to change their perspective, then bad can literally become good.

If all of this is true, then, a person has options when something bad happens. Those moments can eith be minimized, or flipped into an opportunity, or a combination of the two. And this comes from figuring out how to internally shift perspective at will. And that comes from living in any world that has a mix of good and bad. The very very good teaches it just as much as the very very bad teaches it.

And then all of it, the good the bad the ugly becomes very good. And it doesn't matter what type of world it is, the same opportunity exists. The same solution works for all of them. Even the bad becomes good in every conceivable existence. And God is certainly omni-benevolent. That would be a super-big-wow for me.

But, as I said there might be a point of diminishing returns where evi is reduced too much. But I think you get the idea of what I was talking about.

Only if you value 1% of the population having a puzzle to solve higher than 99% leading a better life.

Yeah, I hear ya.
 
Last edited:

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I agree with everything you're saying. The bold underlined part I think is important. If God is real, then there is a lot that can be accomplished/gained by having a good working relationship with it in the here and now. If God set it up, and lets it run, and people don't have any reason to reach out to God, then that's a resource that goes undeveloped. Maybe a few people would still explore divinity, but not as many.
We're getting away from my original point, which was that a lesser amount of "evil" (suffering and so forth) in the world would be better all round and maybe better than some kind of perfection. That's OK though, I'm happy to discuss what you put forward.

The question that I have always had is if God wants us to experience him and so on, then he should make it a lot easier to, first, be sure he even exists and second, know what the heck he wants. It's his show of course, but imo if an omni God wanted me to believe in his existence I would do so, and if he wanted to give me instructions then he would do alot better than the confused mess of prophets and messengers and holy books that we have now. I don't see how that would change in my thought experiment.
As an atheist, it's OK to think that's a foolish pipe dream. But there have been a few in my faith tradition that have accomplished some amazing things. Even if those things haven't happened, I think it's still a possibility. We are taking about God as if its a real thing, and has real power. And if we continue with that premise, I would like to see this improved version of reality without reducing the odds of making contact with God and working with it for the benefit of everyone.
Yes, people do some amazing things sometimes. The problem is that none of it is anything that humans can't do if they put their minds to it (and have the right minds in the first place). Once again, if God wants us to believe that we are getting assistance from him he should make it more obvious. And the improved version should involve a some improvement from God too. Am I being repetitive? :)
I've been avoiding mentioning this, but, if knowledge-of-good-and-evil contribute to making contact, and I think it does, then reducing evil reduces the odds of success. Obtaining that knowledge is slower or maybe becomes impossible if evil is reduced. And since I'm swinging for the fences, I want that knoweldge free and open to everyone in large quantities to increase the odds that one of us is going to make contact and encourage God to help those who need help in a way that doesn't interfere with the delicate balance of good and evil.
An easier way to have contact is to make contact easier. If I was invisible and wanted to talk to you I wouldn't kick you in the testicles and wait for you to say "Is someone there?"
Really? Human nature is changed in the way you're describing? That's surprising.
Why surprising? My Brave New World would be populated by people equivalent to the best of us now. They exist now.
Well. This is what I'm thinking.

IMO, living a good life in an imperfect world involves managing moments. As humans, we have a really interesting capability of being able to speed up time and also slow down time. Not really speeding up and slowing down time, but the way that we experience time, the way we experience moments is facinating to me. When tragedy happens, it's like time stops. And the world collapses. And everything becomes current, and immediate, and focused. And when things are good, time speeds up. Days and weeks and months and years fly by, and before you know it the kids are grown, the house is back to empty. What happened? This even happens with a nice meal. Poof, it's gone. If I'm not careful, I barely remember that I ate it.

What if, that experience of speeding up and slowing down time can be reversed? I've been practicing with this. When something really nice is happening, I try to slow down time and really focus on each moment and stretch it out. Gratefully, I dont have a lot of tragedy in my life, but, I'm trying to prepare myself for it. And if it happens, I'm going to try to focus on the moment passing, and release it, and maybe speed up those moments.

If a person can do those things, then any good that happens is stretched out, and those moments last. And any bad that happens is reduced and passes quickly. Learning to do this can happen in two ways, either when good things happen, a person notices time speeding up, and maybe realizes that they can control how each moment is experienced. Or. It could happen when bad things happen and time slows to a screaching halt and the person realizes that they can control how each moment is experienced.

If so, then it doesn't matter if the world is just like ours, much much better than ours, or much much worse than ours, or any thing in that range. The same solution is available to all to live a good life. The good moments are stretched out to eternity, and the bad are here and gone in the bat of an eye. And this ability to shift perspective at will is no different than the ability to seize opportunity, and shift tragedy into something productive. Not that mourning isn't worthwhile. But if people can learn to change their perspective, then bad can literally become good.

If all of this is true, then, a person has options when something bad happens. Those moments can eith be minimized, or flipped into an opportunity, or a combination of the two. And this comes from figuring out how to internally shift perspective at will. And that comes from living in any world that has a mix of good and bad. The very very good teaches it just as much as the very very bad teaches it.

And then all of it, the good the bad the ugly becomes very good. And it doesn't matter what type of world it is, the same opportunity exists. The same solution works for all of them. Even the bad becomes good in every conceivable existence. And God is certainly omni-benevolent. That would be a super-big-wow for me.
Most of what you describe is what can be achieved through Buddhist practice. I've experienced a taste of it and it is wonderful.

The problem is that the benefits are only experienced by those that succeed, a small number indeed. What about everyone else? They still experience bad as bad, not good. And if you want to call God omni-benevolent it has to apply to everyone, not a privileged few. That's why it's "omni".

As a way to survive the world as it is though, full marks!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
We're getting away from my original point, which was that a lesser amount of "evil" (suffering and so forth) in the world would be better all round and maybe better than some kind of perfection. That's OK though, I'm happy to discuss what you put forward.

Sorry. That wasn't my intention to change the subject. I feel like we are on the same page, though. What we are discussing is, what is the right balance of good and evil? Is there a right balance at all? Or, do all of the possible combinations bring the same opportunity to convert evil into good?

The question that I have always had is if God wants us to experience him and so on, then he should make it a lot easier to, first, be sure he even exists and second, know what the heck he wants. It's his show of course, but imo if an omni God wanted me to believe in his existence I would do so, and if he wanted to give me instructions then he would do alot better than the confused mess of prophets and messengers and holy books that we have now. I don't see how that would change in my thought experiment.

Yes, people do some amazing things sometimes. The problem is that none of it is anything that humans can't do if they put their minds to it (and have the right minds in the first place). Once again, if God wants us to believe that we are getting assistance from him he should make it more obvious. And the improved version should involve a some improvement from God too. Am I being repetitive? :)

I hear you. And I've mentioned this in a few different threads. There cannot be any communion unless it is perfectly true. Any physical revelation ( actual proof ) will naturally and automatically become an idol to some, many, or most. If God does not have a physical form, revealing itself, proving its existence in a physical way prohibits communion. This is a lesson that's taught in the Hebrew bible. The example that comes to mind is in Judges. The Jewish people just finished a succesful campaign led by Gideon. Gideon takes the spoils, fashions a golden something-or-other to commemorate the miraculous victory, and the Jewish people start worshipping it. It's sad and embarrassing as a Jew to read stories like this. But, they're also great lessons for a religious person.

So, it's challenging. On the one hand, yes God wants us to believe, and there's opportunity to benefit greatly for ourselves and others from that belief and communion. But also God also needs that belief to be perfectly true. And then this begs the question: Isn't God supposed to be omnipotent? If so why can't God directly tolerate falsehood within itself.

In Judaism God is described as "who?", also described as "what?", and also rarely described as "where?". Communion with God is connecting with God, and being included with God. And none of that can happen if there is any falsehood at all. Contact with God is being in the place that is God. That place does not tolerate anything false.

And that is why the serpent never lied. It can't lie. It still cannot lie. That's what makes it tempting even today.

This lack of tolerance is difficult to reconcile with omnipotence, but only because true/false is usually limited to intellectual true/false. Emotions can also be true/false, and cultivating true emotions is, in my opinion, much easier for several reasons. Primary among them is, there are infinitely many emotions. Intellectually there's really only 1 version of truth. But emotionally there's infinite opportunity to cultivate truth. Because of this, the lack of tolerance was compensated by granting human emotions as an act of God's omnipotence.

God is all truth, and only truth, and doesn't change. Using omnipotence God created humans who were vastly diverse, and still, each one has the capability to operate with God, in God, on God's terms in complete truth. For those rare individuals that do not have any emotion at all, either due to pathology, or God forbid, as a result of trauma and torture, they still have the opportunity to connect with the divine through their intellect.

If a person is healthy, and is capable of experiencing human emotions, it's actually not that difficult to connect to God. Christians do this the best in my opinion. The idea that God would sacrifice its only son for humanity as a promise that each person's sins would be forgiven, brings a very powerful and strong and absolutley true emotional connection. But it cannot be rational; it cannot be intellectual; if God isn't literally a sky-daddy who physically impregnated Mary, yadda, yadda, yadda. Not that a lot of people take Christianity to this extreme, but a "God in the flesh" if understood literally, intellectually, is folly if God is not actually "flesh". People teach that it is. For those people who do believe it literally, if they're wrong, when they conjure that idea into their mind, then they have sabatoged the connection that they're seeking, and they've sabatoged the connection for the other adherents, students, children that they are teaching.

So it is easy. But it's also difficult. There's opportunity for everyone, and a lot of people do it. But, there's also a lot of opportunity for error. And, imo, people have every right to be angry. It's a true emotion. Go ahead and blame God for those things that are considered unfair. Blame God for not making it easier. Don't forgive God unless and until God answers in a way that is understood. All of that is absolutely true. But don't expect an answer if the god that is being imagined intellectually doesn't match THE God which is absolultely unique. It's like typing the wrong url. It's like mistyping an email address. And it could be that people are being given the wrong url and given the wrong email address. If so, who's actually to blame?

Why surprising? My Brave New World would be populated by people equivalent to the best of us now. They exist now.

I thought we were talking about small communities. And I thought you were saying, maybe I'm mistaken, that in those small communities, the changes in human nature you are proposing already have happened, and the negative aspects have been eliminated.

Most of what you describe is what can be achieved through Buddhist practice. I've experienced a taste of it and it is wonderful.

The problem is that the benefits are only experienced by those that succeed, a small number indeed. What about everyone else? They still experience bad as bad, not good. And if you want to call God omni-benevolent it has to apply to everyone, not a privileged few. That's why it's "omni".

Well, yeah, but also... I don't know. For me, what you're saying sounds good at first, but then my mind starts thinking about the implications of everyone succeeding. And then my mind flips back in the other direction because there's supposed to be future world where everyone does succeed. And this little ping-pong match goes on for a while, and the resolution, in my opinion, is that everyone will succeed, but all for different reasons.

The people you're talking about, the few, those are people who succeed in an intuitive straight forward manner. There's also a few, who will succeed in a completely counter-intuitive backwards manner. And the rest, the vast majority, are somewhere inbetween, and this middle majority is a wildcard. They will succeed, but by some combination of intuitive, counter-intuitive, and other means of converting bad to good. And it could be that they employ multiple techniques, switching moment to moment, or leaning on a few different techniques that they know work for them.

So yeah, it's rare for people to succeed in the straight forward way, but that's not the only way. There's probably lots of ways to convert bad to good, especially if one considers combining techniques. I gave you 1 example, that would work effectively in a range of possible worlds. It works in worlds which are much much worse than ours, and also in worlds that are much much better than ours. If it works in all possible worlds then God is certainly omni-benevolent. How much more so if there are multiple techniques for converting bad to good that work in all possible worlds. That's a Mega-Super-Duper-Wow for me.

I've written a lot, so might as well be complete. There's just a small bit left to explain my position on this. You may be asking, why I might object to everyone succeeding in a straight forward manner.

It doesn't make sense for everyone to succeed in a straight forward manner.

Obviously, some people do bad things. They should experience bad as bad. On the other hand, if everything was quid-pro-quo and obvious in the here and now, everyone would know each other's faults. I'm not sure I like that either. If I make a mistake, I appreciate the opportunity to work that out privately. And if everyone knew "His house burnt down, he must be an evil-doer" then what? It makes it much harder to make those inner needed changes. If everywhere I go, people look at me like I'm evil, because my house burnt down, I start to feel evil, and then I do evil. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So, the retribution is hidden, mixed with random harmful phenomena. Good things too. Good things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people. And all of this is a form of keeping people's inner dimension private. It's modest. Not that people shouldn't be punished publicly when they are proven guilty. But there is some benefit to keeping these things private. If everyone obviously succeeded as a result of merit, then those who are lacking merit are obvious also.

OK. If good things happen to bad people, and many people are succeeding, then those bad people become role models, and evil is being encouraged. It's better if only a few people succeed in a straight forward manner. Some of those will be good people, some of those will be bad people. The bad actions are not mistaken for the cause of the success. The preference here is not encouraging bad behavior which overides encouraging good behavior because if there was a quid-pro-quo then everyone's inner goodness and badness would be public information. And that would make converting bad to good more difficult.
 
Last edited:

Ashoka

श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
For the sake of this thread, let's suppose some form of Abraham's God is really real and the theistic religion has the facts right. I'm gonna go with Christianity, as that's what I'm most familiar with.

Christians say that you need God's forgiveness because we are filthy sinners. Luckily, Jesus died so His Father would not look at us without disgust.

But I ask you... Do you forgive Jesus and His Father? I don't.

Look at all the suffering. Look at the genocides that the Father ordered the Israelites to carry out in Cannan! He openly ordered murder of people who broke a seemingly artificial moral law book. He flooded the earth and all the animals in it. Reading the Bible, it seems to me that God puts us through unnecessary misery, as He brags about His omnipotence.

So... no! I don't forgive God. I balk at the idea that Yahweh is demanding that I seek forgiveness from Him! My mother held her faith that Jesus would cure her cancer all the way to the very end... Do I forgive Jesus for allowing me to watch my mother die as a babe? No! Though, some would argue it was good because it built my character...

So, hypothetically, if an Abrahamic God is real, do you forgive Him?

Forgiveness isn't the same as accepting. You can forgive someone and still admit that they are toxic. You can forgive someone and keep your distance.

As a Hindu, Yahweh to me is an Asura. Sure, I forgive him, but I don't want anything to do with him. And I won't stop speaking out against his atrocities, or the atrocities committed in his name.
 

Thrillobyte

Active Member
If the Abrahamic God exists, then I see no reason to forgive him for allowing me to endure years of abuse and neglect (as well as years of bullying and harassment at school) while I was growing up, despite my sincere faith in him and countless prayers to him pleading with him to protect me. I've also endured years of depression and other emotional turmoil due to the PTSD I developed as a result of the abuse and trauma I endured while growing up.

Again, I was naive enough to have faith in God and hope that he would help me deal with the emotional turmoil I was experiencing, but I endured it all without God and ultimately learned to help myself without relying on him. I eventually learned that I don't need to depend on him in order to experience emotional healing and to feel real peace and contentment in my life. I've learned that I'm much better off without believing in and having faith in God.
If I may comment on this, pepper--my personal opinion:

Societal evolution has decreed that there we are born winners or losers in this life. People like Trump, Bezos, Gates, Job and Musk are life's winners. The rest of us fall into different spectrums of this scale. Right now there are tens of millions of Americans who at the bottom of the rung who are homeless, broke, addicts, jobless, etc who are life's losers. Precious few have the wherewithal to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make something of their lives. But social scientists have concluded that a person of color born in poverty with no one to lend him a helping hand will likely stay poor all their life. Put another way, the odds are extremely thin such a person will find the means to pull himself out of that poverty.

I have concluded God has nothing to do with any of this. Since he is a deist God to the extreme, he didn't birth most of us into poverty nor did he have anything to do with Prince George just happening to be born into the most royal family on earth. It's pure odds--the luck of the draw, the roll of the dice. The luckiest fellow I know of is a young kid of 30 named Edwin Castro who won the biggest lottery prize in history--2 BILLION dollars. Prior to that he was an ordinary working stiff with no prospects other than how far up the ladder he could get at work. Today, he just bought a 26 MILLION dollar bachelor pad in Hollywood Hills, a 4 million dollar house for his parents in Altadena, Ca and no doubt a yacht, and private jet will follow. This kid has roughly 60 years to enjoy his windfall on the most luxurious life one can imagine. How many of us will get that chance? Did God have anything to do with that, nah! 292 million people bought tickets for that lottery and Mr Castro bought one ticket at his local gas station and he hit it. The luck of the draw, the roll of the dice, that's all. This entire experience on earth for the last 100 million years. Evolution of society, evolution of species to evolve the way it is for the fortunate few at the top of the mountain and the rest of us underneath creating that mountain upon which the fortunate few sit, no supernatural entities involved.
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
The human individual who does not believe that eternal life can be attained in this world - that is because their soul has been cut off from the Son of Man who has eternal life in this world. Whoever cuts themselves off from the father, they sever any connection between their soul and the Son of Man.

The human individual forgives God for the sake of his soul. He forgives God because he believes in the potential of his soul and loves his soul.
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
Didn't do enough. He left us here on earth with a promise he'll come back, sorta like a dad who goes to buy cigarettes and never returns.

He casts people into hell, (if He is God and the Christians are right, then He does). I'll never forgive Jesus for not buying my friends salvation simply because he is an atheist.
If you consider Jesus God, then I can see that. But if you consider Jesus a man, then he had limited scope.
 

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
I forgive Entropy for its transgressions, because nothing would exist without it. I cannot forgive a God that should know better than to declare a tribe of people his chosen ones, his murderous rampage that left millions dead and the jealously this God has for us. This God isn't omnibenevolent yet expects his creation to be and if not marks the burden of sin on them. Even if this God existed I would not consider this a God or even worth worshipping. It's time to throw away these useless tribalistic spiritual traditions and come together to progress our sovereign unity as one species.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I forgive Entropy for its transgressions, because nothing would exist without it. I cannot forgive a God that should know better than to declare a tribe of people his chosen ones, his murderous rampage that left millions dead and the jealously this God has for us. This God isn't omnibenevolent yet expects his creation to be and if not marks the burden of sin on them. Even if this God existed I would not consider this a God or even worth worshipping. It's time to throw away these useless tribalistic spiritual traditions and come together to progress our sovereign unity as one species.
It is sure a good thing that such a God does not exist. The Bible has done more to ruin God's reputation than any other single book.
 

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
It is sure a good thing that such a God does not exist. The Bible has done more to ruin God's reputation than any other single book.
Let me say though, that even though Entropy is the reason why evil exists, and that Entropy is part of my trinitarian view of God, I still forgive it, because Entropy was the thing that broke down the Omniverse into much smaller forces. If Entropy didn't exist everything would still be part of one Omniverse and exist as nothing but pure energy. I forgive Entropy because Entropy isn't intelligent and doesn't know any better when bad things happen because of it. It may be responsible for everything bad that has ever happened, but it's also responsible for existence as we know it to actually exist. Extropy and The Omniverse cannot exist without Entropy, they all work together to develop a better future for us all.

I know Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha said that the Bible is meant to be taken metaphorically, so you don't believe that God has done those particular things. I also know that in the Baha'i Faith your God is named Baha, the one-hundredth name of God, meaning, "all-glorious" and is the most important name of God in your religion. I've even read scripture of your prophets and have come to admire how they view and understand God. In fact, it seems that the prophets of your religion focus on the order of the Universe, which I would call natural extropy, and I deeply respect how positive and uplifting their personal understandings of God are. They are intoxicated by the idea of God just as much as Spinoza and I are.
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
Let me say though, that even though Entropy is the reason why evil exists, and that Entropy is part of my trinitarian view of God, I still forgive it, because Entropy was the thing that broke down the Omniverse into much smaller forces.
Entropy broke down the One? Or the spirit of the Father broke down the One and created entropy?
 

Exaltist Ethan

Bridging the Gap Between Believers and Skeptics
Entropy broke down the One? Or the spirit of the Father broke down the One and created entropy?
There is no "Father" figure in cosmology. The Omniverse / Multiverse / Universe isn't human. Forces are what they are without the need of human-like avatars to set them up. Entropy itself broke things down, because there were real forces involved in that. The trinitarian view I have isn't Christian, and I don't believe in the Father/Son/Holy Spirit dynamic. I believe in an Entropic/Extropic/Omniverse dynamic that works together, even if it is easy to understand them as one or the other. It's so easy to anthropomorphize things that aren't human but we are just a spec of Extropy in reality and really nothing more, as of yet.
 

Treasure Hunter

Well-Known Member
There is no "Father" figure in cosmology. The Omniverse / Multiverse / Universe isn't human. Forces are what they are without the need of human-like avatars to set them up. Entropy itself broke things down, because there were real forces involved in that. The trinitarian view I have isn't Christian, and I don't believe in the Father/Son/Holy Spirit dynamic. I believe in an Entropic/Extropic/Omniverse dynamic that works together, even if it is easy to understand them as one or the other. It's so easy to anthropomorphize things that aren't human but we are just a spec of Extropy in reality and really nothing more, as of yet.
It seems like you are attempting to escape the subjective into an imagined objective view. It’s a strong temptation, but I would recommend against doing too much of this.

We can’t escape the subjective, including our humanity. When I embraced subjectivity and anthropomorphized, I was able to pass through narrow spaces that used to get me stuck.
 
Top