Gods responsibility

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most of the things you mention here are mythic representations. As I said in another thread, I don't think theology is grounded in physical cosmology. God isn't an old man with a white beard in the sky. We sort of have that mythic construction, because it makes the concept of "God" easier to grasp for most of us.

There's a wide range of options between "an old man with a white beard in the sky" and completely mythic. The vast majority of religious groups - and individual theists - believe in some sort of God that exists in reality and has physical effects. The Catholic Church, for example, would disagree with your characterization of transubstantiation as "mythic representation" that is "not bounded in physical cosmology." They really do teach that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ.

Or take the classical arguments for God: most of them either invoke God as the cause for something physical (e.g. the cosmological argument) or try to infer God's physical existence (e.g. the ontological argument).

So, what is God to you?

It's hard to pin down exactly, but I'd say that at the very least, a god would be an entity with intelligence and will; that has real, physical effects, and is "above" humanity in some way (e.g. by being immensely powerful or knowing, or by having created humanity as a deliberate act); and is worthy of worship.

You're right. This kind of construction is generally not so easy to grasp as a more anthropomorphic construction. We use these anthropomorphic constructions for ease of description -- not as definitions.

You do. I'm not so sure how many others take the approach that you do... and I suspect that many who do take it consider themselves atheists.

It may be. But it's also the view of many Christians (admittedly, most of them much more progressive).

That's putting it mildly.

One of the things about a religion that's as large and diverse as Christianity is that practically any fringe view will be held by "many" Christians.

It certainly makes a whole lot more sense to me -- and I've been through seminary. Although, I will say that most Xtians in this camp take it a wee bit further than that. Most Xtians aren't so humanistic. We wouldn't, for example, say that God is a human construction. We would still say that we are created by God.

And that's where I see a problem. How would a principle, even a divine one, create in the way you're talking about?

I'm still working this out, so it's not nearly as tight as I'd like for it to be. But I'm thinking that, if God is the platform for existence, then what we perceive as "good" or "bad" doesn't really matter, except in the immediate moment of our own life. I look at it this way: when we die, no matter or energy is lost -- it only changes. We return to the dust from which we came. Our energy goes back into the cosmos. Death isn't ultimately "bad." it just... is. I don't think God operates out of a mode of "good/bad." I think God operates out of a mode of "this is existence."
I'm not completely happy with this, but here it is -- for now. Maybe our back-and-forth can help clarify.

I see this approach as inconsistent, since you make statements that have much wider implications. If God really does operate the way you say, why would "acting in accordance with love and compassion" imply anything about the imageo dei? Why would a god of indifference have an image of compassion?

Also, if there's nothing bad about death, why should we punish murder or praise people who save lives?

Mmmm... yes and no? I just don't think God "sees" existence in those terms. God is above those terms, or outside those terms.

But we operate from our own perspective, not God's. Our descriptions of things only need to make sense in our paradigm. A fish's perspective (assuming we're talking about some sort of intelligent super-fish) may not include the concepts of "wet" and "dry", but that doesn't mean we can't validly say "that fish is wet."

I think most people are happy to leave it at that. I'm not.

I'm not either... hence my atheism.

I wouldn't go so far as to say God isn't real, but I think God is far more of a principle of Being than God is a being.

I just have a real problem with God as a being who plays on the same field as the rest of us. I just think that sort of construction leads us down a path that goes ultimately nowhere honest. Because then we end up with the theodicy conundrum.

I'd say it's more honest than an approach that tries to cling to the trappings of religion while denying the literal truth of the beliefs that underpin those trappings.

There are many ancient religious traditions that got by fine for ages without running into conflict between what they preached and the facts at hand. As these traditions run into conflict, there are a few ways that we can respond:

- deny the facts and keep the beliefs
- tweak or remove the parts that conflict with the facts and keep the rest
- acknowledge the facts and reject the beliefs.

I take the third approach. It seems to me that you take the second... but at a certain point, I think it loses its epistemological justification. A belief system that's been hacked away to the point that it doesn't actually touch reality (e.g. by making testable claims about the physical world) is one that loses its justification. Why metaphorical Christianity instead of metaphorical Islam or metaphorical atheism? Is it just an aesthetic preference? If so, then how do you reconcile this with the fact that Christianity makes itself out to be more than an aesthetic preference?

Christianity is based on the literal truth of certain ideas: the existence of God; his physical creation of the universe; the literal Earthly ministry of Jesus; his literal death, descent, resurrection, and transfiguration; and the promise of a literal life in the hereafter.

There's always been a core of literal belief: maybe not in a literal man named Adam and woman named Eve naked in a garden with a talking snake, but at least rejecting polygenism and upholding the idea that there was some sort of "first sin" that explains the physical state of humanity today. Maybe not a Heaven in the sky with fluffy clouds or a Hell that's an underground lake of fire, but at least the prospect of a real afterlife with the potential for either reward or punishment.

It's relatively recently that some Christians have turned away from the claim that these core ideas are literally true... and in doing so, they undercut their own foundation, IMO, because they simultaneously uphold and deny the tradition that resulted in their beliefs.

I don't think your "resolution" to theodicy is a resolution at all... no more than it would resolve "1 - 1 = 1" by saying that "1" is a metaphor that represents "the wholeness of nothingness" or the like.

So, I'm gathering that you don't really think that God is simply another player in the game?

How do you construct God?

I think the God that's presented by most theists, if he existed as they describe, would be just another player in the game. In reality, I think that a person's God is really just a projection of himself.

... which is interesting for a number of reasons, but I don't think that a person's God has any bearing on the nature of the universe other than as a way of teasing out how that theist thinks the universe ought to work.

 

[cottage]

Of course people suffer. And that suffering is important to us. But, the perception of suffering is part of the game that is played out. Even you will have to admit that most people view death as "bad." But, when pushed, most will admit that death is preferable to pain. how many times have I sat with the family of a dying member who assert, "I want him to die so that he will no longer be in pain?"

Well I’m sorry but I cannot for the life of me see how any of that absolves God from responsibility. Death doesn’t bring about the cessation of suffering in the world; in fact it is a major cause of much wretchedness and suffering, especially in many cases the manner itself in which death is brought about. And it most certainly is not true that death is “preferable to pain” for “most” people “when pushed”; that is a gross exaggeration. People deal with pain everyday and throughout their lives. And nor is it for others to speak of wanting someone to die; that is for the individual alone to voice.

 

[Thief]

Ask yourself this: How is it possible for there to be perpetrators?

I’ll answer that question for you: it is because God brought them into being. It was God’s will that there be perpetrators of evil. For if it wasn’t his will then self-evidently the perpetrators usurped God’s power, which is absurd. Therefore it was God’s will and thus he is responsible for the evil that otherwise could not logically have taken place.

So God whispers in the ear of bad guys....go kill something!

Or maybe that's your dog you think is talking to ya?
Or maybe you just hear disembodied voices?
Moses did.

And Moses came down from the mountain and seeing the people with a golden calf....put 3thousand of them to the sword.

Was that God?
Or was Moses listening to Himself?

And will Moses be held the slaying of so many?

Moses was evil?

 

[cottage]

So God whispers in the ear of bad guys....go kill something!

Or maybe that's your dog you think is talking to ya?
Or maybe you just hear disembodied voices?
Moses did.

And Moses came down from the mountain and seeing the people with a golden calf....put 3thousand of them to the sword.

Was that God?
Or was Moses listening to Himself?

And will Moses be held the slaying of so many?

Moses was evil?

Yes, Moses was evil. And yes, Moses was listening to himself. And where was the Benevolent God, the moral arbiter, and the cause of all causes and effects? He looked on while all this was happening, arms folded, and not in the least concerned at the suffering done in his name.

 

[sojourner]

There's a wide range of options between "an old man with a white beard in the sky" and completely mythic. The vast majority of religious groups - and individual theists - believe in some sort of God that exists in reality and has physical effects. The Catholic Church, for example, would disagree with your characterization of transubstantiation as "mythic representation" that is "not bounded in physical cosmology." They really do teach that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ.

Or take the classical arguments for God: most of them either invoke God as the cause for something physical (e.g. the cosmological argument) or try to infer God's physical existence (e.g. the ontological argument).

But at the same time, most of those folks haven't really thought through that construction to a logical conclusion. For most folks, it comes down to "because that's what the bible says," or "it just is... M'kay?" Most of the folks you mention do realize that there's some sort of mythic dimension to their theology claims, whether they can articulate it adequately or not. I know for a fact (because I used to be one) that even the Catholics will admit that transubstantiation has a more mythic aspect to it than a physical aspect. Most priests will admit that, if the bread is subjected to lab tests, it will prove to be just bread.

It's hard to pin down exactly, but I'd say that at the very least, a god would be an entity with intelligence and will; that has real, physical effects, and is "above" humanity in some way (e.g. by being immensely powerful or knowing, or by having created humanity as a deliberate act); and is worthy of worship.

And do you really believe that, or are you saying that "If there is a God, that's the sort of God I think God would be?" Because that construction closely follows the model that I see you so often argue against. Just trying to establish your view. Could you articulate further?

I'm not so sure how many others take the approach that you do... and I suspect that many who do take it consider themselves atheists.

I suspect that most have some inkling. They're either unwilling, unable, or not ready to fully admit just how extensive that approach truly is.

One of the things about a religion that's as large and diverse as Christianity is that practically any fringe view will be held by "many" Christians.

And yet, most seminaries will readily admit the metaphorical nature of the preponderance of our belief system. I'm stating it here more strongly than they would, because I want to push those parameters to see how far they'll stretch.

And that's where I see a problem. How would a principle, even a divine one, create in the way you're talking about?

It doesn't. But that's the language we use, because it's "comfortable."

I see this approach as inconsistent, since you make statements that have much wider implications. If God really does operate the way you say, why would "acting in accordance with love and compassion" imply anything about the imageo dei? Why would a god of indifference have an image of compassion?

Because those attributes are the ones we have perceived to exemplify a higher, deeper, more abundant humanity. If its true that we should act in accordance with the universe, then being in an attitude of love and compassion put in harmony with the cosmos, and hence, God.

Also, if there's nothing bad about death, why should we punish murder or praise people who save lives?

I'm not sure that truly enlightened people, such as the Dalai Lama, would punish a murderer. They've learned how to "let go" of their own baggage and embrace a broader perspective. Most of us aren't there.

But we operate from our own perspective, not God's. Our descriptions of things only need to make sense in our paradigm.

First, yes, we do operate from our own perspective. But at the same time, we realize that there is a larger perspective, and where we find our perspective lacking, realize we need to strive for that greater perspective.

Second, I'd be inclined to say that our limited perspective is what constitutes sin -- or a separation from the creative principle.

I'm not either... hence my atheism.

I think you and I agree more than we probably disagree, if we were honest with ourselves.

I'd say it's more honest than an approach that tries to cling to the trappings of religion while denying the literal truth of the beliefs that underpin those trappings.

There are many ancient religious traditions that got by fine for ages without running into conflict between what they preached and the facts at hand. As these traditions run into conflict, there are a few ways that we can respond:

- deny the facts and keep the beliefs
- tweak or remove the parts that conflict with the facts and keep the rest
- acknowledge the facts and reject the beliefs.

I take the third approach. It seems to me that you take the second... but at a certain point, I think it loses its epistemological justification. A belief system that's been hacked away to the point that it doesn't actually touch reality (e.g. by making testable claims about the physical world) is one that loses its justification. Why metaphorical Christianity instead of metaphorical Islam or metaphorical atheism? Is it just an aesthetic preference? If so, then how do you reconcile this with the fact that Christianity makes itself out to be more than an aesthetic preference?

You're absolutely right on this point, and I absolutely agree, with the following exception:

I'm "in the second camp," as you say, and I'm aware that, at some point, it does lose its epistemological justification. And I have to weigh that loss against the advantages such a belief system provides: a vehicle for me to find deeper meaning for my life and the world around me.

Yeah, I think that all religious systems make that claim, and all have to rise above their absolutist claims. I think that most of our religious differences are differences of "window dressing." For me, I reject some claims of Xy and embrace claims of other religions, most specifically Shamanism, because that's what "works" for me.

Christianity is based on the literal truth of certain ideas: the existence of God; his physical creation of the universe; the literal Earthly ministry of Jesus; his literal death, descent, resurrection, and transfiguration; and the promise of a literal life in the hereafter.

Those "literal truths," though, only reflect a bigger reality and are not that reality, itself. That's what I mean when I say that Xy is not based in physical cosmology.

There's always been a core of literal belief: maybe not in a literal man named Adam and woman named Eve naked in a garden with a talking snake, but at least rejecting polygenism and upholding the idea that there was some sort of "first sin" that explains the physical state of humanity today. Maybe not a Heaven in the sky with fluffy clouds or a Hell that's an underground lake of fire, but at least the prospect of a real afterlife with the potential for either reward or punishment.

You're right. And other religions have other ways of stating the same larger truths.

It's relatively recently that some Christians have turned away from the claim that these core ideas are literally true... and in doing so, they undercut their own foundation, IMO, because they simultaneously uphold and deny the tradition that resulted in their beliefs.

Which was, I think, precisely what men like Jesus and Paul were doing. At some point, the moorings have to be loosed so the ship can sail...

I don't think your "resolution" to theodicy is a resolution at all... no more than it would resolve "1 - 1 = 1" by saying that "1" is a metaphor that represents "the wholeness of nothingness" or the like.

I understand that. It's a work that's highly in process for me. I don't have an answer, but I'm willing to engage the questions.

In reality, I think that a person's God is really just a projection of himself.

Bingo! Of course that's the case. Which is why you and I are able to hold constructions at arm's length and go with what works for each of us.

 

[sojourner]

Well I’m sorry but I cannot for the life of me see how any of that absolves God from responsibility.

Responsibility for what? For our actions? In what way would God be held responsible for our actions? How is that theologically possible, in your view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Responsibility for what? For our actions? In what way would God be held responsible for our actions? How is that theologically possible, in your view?

IMO, it's not just "theologically possible"; it's theologically necessary: if there are things going on in God's domain that fall outside his responsibility, then his sovereignty is diminished.

 

[jtartar]

Say some scientist creates a perfect robot with freewill and decides to let it loose on the world. Then the robot decides to murder most of humanity because it became evil. Is that the robots fault or the scientist who let it loose on the world?

There doesn't seem to be justification for god with this, if he intentionally allowed evil then it follows it is gods fault. Even despite some gift of free will, we would put our creations on a leash or face the consequences.

idav,
Please allow me to introduce you to another perspective.
God, whose Personal name,or Proper name is Jehovah, created Adam and Eve, put them in a beautiful garden, and told them to multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. If they had obeyed God they would still be alive today, with God's pulse almost completed. You see God never wanted Adam and Eve to die, as long as they obeyed Him they would live, only disobedience would cause their death, Gen 2:17. They chose to follow Satan, Gen 3:1-6. Because they rebelled against God, He pronounced their penalty, Gen 3:19, just as God had told them.
The thing God did next was to tell how mankind had the possibility to egg back into favor with God, Gen 3:15, which is the first prophecy recorded in the Bible.
This prophecy is sometimes called Covenant a Theology, or Federal Theology, because it outlines what mankind must do to be able to have the chance, once again, to receive the same promises that Adam and Eve had, before their fall from grace. This first prophecy is telling about what Jesus, the seed of the woman mentioned, would do to Satan.
The Theme of the entire Bible is The Kingdom of God, with Jesus to be The King of the Kingdom of God on earth.
Jesus and his bride, which is a group who will rule as kings and priests, in heaven, during The Judgment Day, Rev 20:1-7, 21:1-4. The New Heaven and The New Earth will be the Kings and Priests in heaven, ruling over the New Earth, during the Thousand Year Judgment Day. Most of the people who died will be resurrected to life on earth, during the Thousand Years.
After The Thousand Yeats Judgment Day is over, there will be one final test for mankind, then all who live through that test will be granted Everlasting Life on a Paradise Earth, which has always been God's purpose, Isa 45:18, Ps 37:29, John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15. At last all mankind will be allowed to eat of the tree of everlasting life that was growing in the middle of the original Garden of Eden, Gen 2:6.

 

[cottage]

Responsibility for what? For our actions? In what way would God be held responsible for our actions? How is that theologically possible, in your view?

There are two and only two possibilities, either God means for us to behave and act as we do or he does not. If he does then as well as being responsible he is also evil intentioned or indifferent to our suffering. If he does not then self-evidently he cannot be the Supreme Being.

 

[sojourner]

IMO, it's not just "theologically possible"; it's theologically necessary: if there are things going on in God's domain that fall outside his responsibility, then his sovereignty is diminished.

Well... that's what Genesis asserts. When humanity took on knowledge of good and evil -- exercised their freedom to choose -- God was diminished. See this:

22 Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Humanity has become like God, which does diminish God. Further, God was diminished in becoming Incarnate and dying as one of us.

The biblical precedent is that God has, indeed, been diminished in favor of our sovereignty over our own actions.

 

[sojourner]

There are two and only two possibilities, either God means for us to behave and act as we do or he does not. If he does then as well as being responsible he is also evil intentioned or indifferent to our suffering. If he does not then self-evidently he cannot be the Supreme Being.

You're forgetting the third possibility: God gives us the freedom to act as we see fit. which is what the myth asserts.

If we want to deal with reality rather than myth, God is not a being, but a Divine Principle. Such a Principle had no intent in making us, and thus, has no culpability for the actions we choose.

 

[Thief]

You're forgetting the third possibility: God gives us the freedom to act as we see fit. which is what the myth asserts.

If we want to deal with reality rather than myth, God is not a being, but a Divine Principle. Such a Principle had no intent in making us, and thus, has no culpability for the actions we choose.

???????.......

So God did not intend we choose to know?
I think the garden event clearly shows His intention.

We were given the choice....partake, learn, die....or continue as is.

The choice was made.
We ARE that creature that will risk death to know!

I say we passed the test.

Such character is needed to survive the last breath!!!!!

 

[cottage]

You're forgetting the third possibility: God gives us the freedom to act as we see fit. which is what the myth asserts.

If we want to deal with reality rather than myth, God is not a being, but a Divine Principle. Such a Principle had no intent in making us, and thus, has no culpability for the actions we choose.

Then what you describe is not God, the Supreme Being, and the creator of all things.

 

[sojourner]

Then what you describe is not God, the Supreme Being, and the creator of all things.

Not as some describe God. I've already addressed that point. But, God is not limited to only one description. And this is an important point. We cannot define God. We can only describe God. You're attempting a definition, but it simply doesn't work that way. How can one define what one cannot fully comprehend?

 

[cottage]

Not as some describe God. I've already addressed that point. But, God is not limited to only one description. And this is an important point. We cannot define God. We can only describe God. You're attempting a definition, but it simply doesn't work that way. How can one define what one cannot fully comprehend?

One doesn't need to fully comprehend the basic concept, as Aquinas said we can know of God through the created order without knowing his essence. So either God is the Creator or he is not. If he is the creator then as the cause of all subsequent causes and their effects he is thus ultimately responsible for them.

 

[sojourner]

One doesn't need to fully comprehend the basic concept, as Aquinas said we can know of God through the created order without knowing his essence. So either God is the Creator or he is not. If he is the creator then as the cause of all subsequent causes and their effects he is thus ultimately responsible for them.

God is creation. God is creative force/creative principle. God is Creator only in a metaphorical sense.

Speaking from science: there was a "big bang." Is that "big bang" responsible for the Holocaust?

 

[Nakosis]

You're forgetting the third possibility: God gives us the freedom to act as we see fit. which is what the myth asserts.

If we want to deal with reality rather than myth, God is not a being, but a Divine Principle. Such a Principle had no intent in making us, and thus, has no culpability for the actions we choose.

So man is an accident?

 

[Nakosis]

God is creation. God is creative force/creative principle. God is Creator only in a metaphorical sense.

Speaking from science: there was a "big bang." Is that "big bang" responsible for the Holocaust?

Apparently... Speak to the determinism crowd.

But seriously, my question is, is this creative force intelligent or willful?

 

[sojourner]

So man is an accident?

I wouldn't say "accident." I would say, "product of well-balanced, but random events."

 

[sojourner]

Apparently... Speak to the determinism crowd.

But seriously, my question is, is this creative force intelligent or willful?

Probably not in and of itself -- as in a separate, particular being. But I think there is a sort of "collective intelligence" extant in creation. it's what drives our intuition and our attraction to similarity.