Why do most people assume God is benevolent?

[Imagist]

You may marry whom you like, but what if you marry an abuser, and then suffer at the hands of your spouse? If there were no possibility of suffering, you might not be allowed to marry whom you wish. You don't understand relationship. That much is very, very apparent by your posts.

If none of the people out there were abusive, that would be better. There would still be plenty of non-abusive people to choose from.

The population currently doesn't include people with robot exoskeletons or three heads. This god has supposedly created a population that doesn't contain such people - is it really so much more of a reduction of the ability to choose a relationship for him to remove the abusers from the population?

But if God is love, then a relationship must exist, because love is a relationship.

The if...then relationship does not apply to the statements above.

God is benevolent, because we who are tuned in to God, believe God to be benevolent. It's that simple. If the relationship is there (and it is), then we do have a say in that relationship. And we say that God is benevolent.

Plenty of battered women are in denial about it.

God has been nothing but kind to me, and to everyone I've ever met.

Then you haven't met this child (hurricane Katrina victim) or this woman and child (earthquake victims). Mass-murderers are nice to some people. You just happen to be one of the lucky ones.

 

[sojourner]

The difference between us is that you argue for the God of religion while I’m arguing disinterestedly for a possible God.

There's the rub. If our experience of God is relational, how can one argue disinterestedly? That negates the very essence of God. God isn't an idea, or a feeling, or a formula. God is relationship. That's precisely why all of this is so much masturbation.

I wrote: ‘God created us, and prior to that we were non-existent and felt nothing. And we felt nothing because we were nothing.’ I then asked how that which is non-existent could benefit from anything? So, therefore, it is nonsense to say it is better to feel pain than to feel nothing.

You're off track. You seem to want there to be no suffering. My answer was that your desire is absurd, because life includes suffering. If we have the capacity to feel anything, that capacity includes a range of feeling, some experienced as better than some others. To argue for such a numbness is to argue for non-existence, which is not only absurd, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You're over-analyzing. It's become annoying.

We can all conceive of a perfectly good God presiding over our world in which there is no pain and suffering.

More over-analyzation. I can't conceive of such a condition, because that's not the way it is. We don't live in fairy-land. We construct a theology for God in light of the world as it is -- not in light of the world as we would like it to be.

Can I make this absolutely plain: I respect your right to your faith,

Why do I doubt that?

But, where I see you, or anyone else, speaking patent nonsense or referring to an incoherent belief as the truth, then as an everyday, knowledge-seeking human being, I’m obliged to take those nonsense statements to task.

One man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm not obligated to formulate a theology based upon what you think makes sense. How egotistical can you be?! You're not obligated to speak to what you perceive as "nonsense." How dare you assume that your skepticism is in any way superior to my faith?
You want to know why this has gotten personal? Read your above post. You want to pretend that you're completely impersonal and sterile. What you don't seem to understand is that I don't perceive God as either as impersonal nor as sterile as you would like to think you are.

God is a God "of religion." That's like saying, "You drive a car of transportation, whereas I consider a car of concept." It's ridiculous! In order for God to be God, that God falls within the purview of the religion that helps us conceptualize God. whenever we deal with God, we're dealing with religion, on some level. You can't divorce the two.

Your objectivity is false, your premise is false, your arguments are false, and none of it informs us of anything important. What's the point? To amuse yourself at our expense?

It would be better if you were to concentrate on the arguments

It would be better if you were to concentrate on faith.

And if a thing is to be taken on faith, may I ask how you propose to show it to me?

No, you may not ask. You may seek for yourself, though. I'm not your personal "life-coach." I'm not here to prove my faith (as if that could even be done!) The problem with skepticism is that it is, essentially, an egocentric practice, whereas God is not an egocentric experience.

BTW, how come it is me defending God all the time, while you insist upon weakening him?

This is yet another example of your provocative MO. I'm only "weakening" God in your opinion. How do you think you can come off thinking that your objective "understanding" of God is superior to mine, in any way?
Your "understanding" of God is not so advanced as you might think. An objective observance of God will only get you the tip of the iceberg that you can see. But, as history has taught us, it's the 90% you can't observe that will act upon your life to transform it.
When you learn that the relationship is the thing to be understood, and not the empirical "evidence," then you will understand that God is not being "weakened" here.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Haha nice try at twisting it around. Did men cause the flood? No. God did. Why? Because God saw that they was evil. So he whacked em! Men had nothing to do with the decision of the flood."

And your evidence for this (other than your favorite book of fables) is . . . .?

 

[sojourner]

These discussions bring to light the powerful arguments against these ancient superstitions.

The arguments only have as much power as any objective study of a relationship could produce. Like a breeze ruffling the water, there are depths that are not bothered by petty observations.

To that extend they may serve to weaken the belief in god(s) and/or supernatural religion. And in some degree they HAVE.

Again -- little ripples on the surface. So what?

I would argue that the history of Western Civ for the past 1,000 is largely the history of two changes; the steady erosion of belief in supernatural religion as a controlling force in society and the equally steady decline in the power and privilege of the few. And I would argue those trends are NOT unrelated.

Religious praxis has experienced a change in paradigm -- from an imperial model to a more familial model. In that sense, the two are not unrelated. When the religious authorities were part of a religious empire, they lorded over their savage converts. Today, in a world view that places religion more in a family model, the subjugation of converts is being exchanged for the inclusion of converts. It is that paradigm shift that you perceive -- not a "decline" of western religion in general.

We have become more caring about our fellows in the same proportion as we have become less god-fearing.

We have become less xenophobic as we have become less "God-fearing," just as we have become more inclusive as we have become more "God-centered."

 

[sojourner]

"Of course those that died in the flood would disagree. They were evil. If they were not evil themselves there were indifferent to evil. Which is not much better, some would say it is worse. "

And here is a stark example of what I mean.


EVIL MEN - defined by those who believe in a certain god - are to be destroyed ASAP.

And the survivors will be the better for it.

This how we get 9/11. Exactly this "I'm right and good and god-fearing and you are wrong and an evil heathen fit only for the fire of purification" attitude that flourishes with the belief in supernatural religion.

I rather suspect Western religion has progressed some since then. You notice that it wasn't us flying planes into Saddam's palaces?
We recognize that we have progressed beyond the theology presented by the flood story. It serves as a basis, but not as the thrust of our belief.

 

[sojourner]

Yes it does if god set the events in motion (via creation).

We changed the direction of motion.

 

[Enoch07]

"Haha nice try at twisting it around. Did men cause the flood? No. God did. Why? Because God saw that they was evil. So he whacked em! Men had nothing to do with the decision of the flood."

And your evidence for this (other than your favorite book of fables) is . . . .?

Probably because I know for a fact that no matter how hard a man tries he is not able to cause a flood, earthquake, etc. At least not thousands of years ago that is.

 

[sojourner]

Then he is not omnipotent, because self-evidently he cannot be limited and without limit at the same time. And if he is not omnipotent he is therefore not 'God', which leaves room for a true God, one who is always omnipotent and always benevolent.

Bull****!

To love of necessity limits one's power, because love is inclusive of the other and makes space for the other. That relationship defers power to the other. What that means is not that God is not omnipotent, but that God has drawn us into that sphere of omnipotence with God.
If there is no love, there is no benevolence. If there is no love, there is no true power, for one who is neither loved, nor loving, will work with the other, but will oppose the other. If God has been rendered "not-God," it's because of those who don't embrace the relationship. The doubters are the ones who weaken God and make God impotent.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"We construct a theology for God in light of the world as it is. . . "

LOL

Not only have you constructed a theology you have invented a god to justify what you constructed.:thud:

Believe whatever fairy tale you like, SJ. No one really cares. Certainly NOT me.

But do follow the11th commandment.

Keep thy religion to thy self.

 

[sojourner]

But let's not forget that as you don't believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God it can't on that account be used as an argument.

Yes it can. Don't be so black-and-white. It doesn't become you. The "inerrancy issue" has no bearing on the theology presented, for theology is constantly in motion -- it is not static and under-glass.

Besides, the post to which I responded took the account as literal to make a jab. If he's going to treat it as literal, then the only answer I can provide is the literal viewpoint of the authors. (That it may differ from mine is a moot issue.)

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Probably because I know for a fact that no matter how hard a man tries he is not able to cause a flood, earthquake, etc. At least not thousands of years ago that is.'

And what evidence do you have that this flood even happened? Other than your fable.

Its a foolish and inconsistent myth. Wrong as fact and silly as philosophy. If your god REALLY did murder 99.99% of humanity - for whatever reason - he is mass murderer.

Nothing can justify genocide. NOTHING.:shout

And if it is just a morality tale as fable it still silly.

 

[sojourner]

God keeping himself in check! <g>

By very definition the term 'self-control' is an absurdity when applied to God, for to use such a term implies the possibility of a contrary position, which is a contradiction if he is the Necessary Being.

I like how you suddenly seem to be the only one who has the "correct" definition of God. You certainly do like to use the "if-then" statements. You decide what God "must be," and then try to hold us hostage to that definition.

You don't think God gave up some control when he created humanity? And if you do, somehow you see that as a bad thing. Might I suggest that the Genesis theology sees breath as evidence of life. God gave up some of that breath to make us live. In doing so, God gave up some of God's power to us. That represents some loss of of self-control, I should think, because in that act, God allowed us a modicum of control.

 

[sojourner]

"God is benevolent, because we who are tuned in to God, believe God to be benevolent. It's that simple. If the relationship is there (and it is), then we do have a say in that relationship. And we say that God is benevolent."

Its this way because I say its this way.

Still carrying that extra overcoat I see.

Wrong. It's this way because that is how the community of believers perceives it to be in the experience of the relationship.
Why don't you play that card to Cottage? he's the one who seems to want to define God in a certain way, which runs contrary to the way that everyone who has ever claimed to have a relationship with God defines God.

 

[Enoch07]

"Probably because I know for a fact that no matter how hard a man tries he is not able to cause a flood, earthquake, etc. At least not thousands of years ago that is.'

And what evidence do you have that this flood even happened? Other than your fable.

Its a foolish and inconsistent myth. Wrong as fact and silly as philosophy. If your god REALLY did murder 99.99% of humanity - for whatever reason - he is mass murderer.

Nothing can justify genocide. NOTHING.:shout

And if it is just a morality tale as fable it still silly.

Ahh the "ace in the hole of the non-believer".

If you don't believe the story happened then how is it Genocide? If you believe the flood happened then you can argue Genocide. You are not being consistent with your logic. Once you are then we can go from there. All this flip flopping ought to have you tired by now.

 

[sojourner]

If none of the people out there were abusive, that would be better. There would still be plenty of non-abusive people to choose from.

Let me guess...you haven't read the thread, have you? This argument was tried several pages ago. It didn't wash then, either.

The if...then relationship does not apply to the statements above.

In what way? God is love. Love is a relationship.

Plenty of battered women are in denial about it.

And this has...what...to do with our relationship with God? What is it that you think battered women are in denial over?

Then you haven't met this child (hurricane Katrina victim) or this woman and child (earthquake victims).

How do you know that God has not been kind to them in the face of natural disaster? This tired argument was also presented several pages ago and didn't work there, either. Get with the program!

Mass-murderers are nice to some people. You just happen to be one of the lucky ones.

And this is cogent...how?
One would think that better arguments could be posited...

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"All this flip flopping ought to have you tired by now."

Oh no. Not even winded.

Because WHICHEVER way you take it is SILLY. I'll give SJ credit for this much. He has a more subtle and challenging view of this myth then the simple and shallow take of the literalist.

Hint. Hint.:slap:

 

[sojourner]

Not only have you constructed a theology you have invented a god to justify what you constructed.

Sorry. Wrong process. God made me, not the other way 'round.

Believe whatever fairy tale you like, SJ. No one really cares. Certainly NOT me.

Right back at you.
I thought I'd offered you an olive branch a while back. But you seem bent on whipping me with it. And I'm the one who believes in fairy-tales. You're a fine one to talk.

But do follow the11th commandment.

Keep thy religion to thy self.

You live in Ky. You must believe in the Constitution. It expressly says that I don't have to do that.
BTW, if you don't like to receive religious opinion, what in the world are you doing on a religious forum? Talk about living in fairy-land!

 

[McBell]

Haha nice try at twisting it around.

You would know.
though I suspect that you tend to see yourself the most in others.

Did men cause the flood? No. God did. Why? Because God saw that they was evil. So he whacked em!

ROTFLMAO
and how is it that you "know" god did it?
Oh yeah, by reading a book written BY MAN about what god allegedly did and did not do.

Way to boost your credibility....not

Men had nothing to do with the decision of the flood.

So men did not choose to be evil?
Perhaps your wording of this part needs a going over and possible re-write?

As for 9/11. Men decided some people was evil, then attacked them.

And can you prove that God did not send them?
Can you prove that they were not merely following the orders of their deity?

You think evil people can't lie?!?!?!?!? I mean mass murder is one thing, but surely they would not stoop so low as to lie! If you really believe they did it because God said so. Then you have responded to terrorism just the way they wanted you to.

I believe that it is just as possible that God did tell them to do it as it that god had nothing to do with it.

Interestingly enough, you are merely reinforcing that belief.

 

[Enoch07]

"All this flip flopping ought to have you tired by now."

Oh no. Not even winded.

Because WHICHEVER way you take it is SILLY. I'll give SJ credit for this much. He has a more subtle and challenging view of this myth then the simple and shallow take of the literalist.

Hint. Hint.:slap:

Its ok ill let you cop out on this one.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...see post #551.