Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[LuisDantas]

God, at least from a monotheistic standpoint, must be either supremely moral or not worth a lot of attention.

I can't conceive of a third option, at least.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever. I have also said that I expected that God was amoral, which is a necessary feature if he is outside time, and is aware of every future consequence of every action. (both his and ours) this would preclude looking only at the immediate and obvious consequence of what might seem an evil act.

If God is that alien to humans, then there is hardly any point in worrying or making guesses about his desires or values, or in fact even his existence. His moral perception would not be transcendental so much as actually inapplicable to our reality. Ultimately, he would be useless as a moral reference.

So no. If belief in God is to have any moral meaning or consequence whatsoever, then unavoidably God himself must be moral -and supremely moral at that. Moral questioning of his actions and desires is not only acceptable, but direly needed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we knew what God had a moral ethic, was one could expect him to hold to it.

if I hold a different moral code to you it is not hypocritical for me to break your code. Moral codes are not transferable in that way.
In the Same way God is not subject to our moral code, however we define it.
However if we dislike what he choses to do, we might well compare it to what we might prefer. But it will not change the situation one iota.

Like I said before, all this gets you to is "God may be immoral, but he doesn't care."

As I touched on before, morality is an expression of values. From some set of initial values, it's a matter of logical inference to figure out how they should be expressed as a code of conduct.

Apparently, God's conduct often includes not saving people from murder, assault, rape, etc. From what I've been told by theists, I gather that he does this knowingly and deliberately, and he would have the power to save them if he chose to do so. This pattern of behaviour does not suggest that God values humanity. Or at least he doesn't value the prevention of human suffering.

If you want to say that God doesn't have to value humanity, so be it, but I think that it's merely a matter of logical inference, not any sort of subjective opinion, that he doesn't value humanity. So it seems to me that the only place where there's any room for a reasonable difference of opinion is in the question of whether devaluing humanity is immoral in and of itself. Personally, I think it's a safe, short leap to answer this question with "yes". However, if you want to argue the position that God doesn't value humanity but that this doesn't make him immoral per se, then that's your prerogative.

I have no reason to believe any one has the authority to speak for God.

Then why do you keep on doing it?

I do believe God loves us, However I think it is highly unlikely he shares any of our moral codes. I think his contact with us is largely through our souls, through the Holy Spirit, and through prayer.

So you reject the idea of "sin", then?

I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever.

I don't believe you. What you've said so far belies the fact that you do. When you say things like "God loves us" and describe how God acts on that love, you're implying that God is a personal entity with will... IOW, an anthropomorphism.

I have also said that I expected that God was amoral, which is a necessary feature if he is outside time, and is aware of every future consequence of every action. (both his and ours) this would preclude looking only at the immediate and obvious consequence of what might seem an evil act.

I don't see how that would imply that God is amoral. What you're saying is that God is capable of seeing larger consequences; this only implies (if it was correct, which it's not, but I'll get into the reasons for that in minute) that God is moral even if we don't see how.

However, as I alluded to, this view is incorrect as long as we're talking about an omnipotent god. In a human context, sure, there are plenty of times when we can't achieve some good end without negative side effects, and if the good outweighs the bad, then sure - that human action might be moral.

... but this doesn't work for an omnipotent God, because if God can do anything - i.e. if statements of the form "God can't do _____" are always incorrect - then it would be wrong to say that God can't do good without creating some evil side effect, even if the net effect is good. If God can do anything, then God can achieve the good without the bad, since "achieving the good without the bad" is part of "everything".

I realise people of all religions hold established views about the nature of God. but I have not indicated that I am speaking for anyone but myself.

When you make authoritative statements about God, I take this as an attempt on your part to speak for all.

The Problem of Evil is something that only applies to certain god-beliefs. If it doesn't apply to your beliefs (something you haven't demonstrated at all, but for argument's sake), then you wouldn't really have refuted the Problem.

The Problem of Evil basically says that a certain set of premises are in disagreement with the actual state of things. Even if you were to argue that your beliefs don't include those premises, this wouldn't mean that the disagreement between those premises and reality doesn't exist.

 

[Copernicus]

I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever.

I don't believe you. What you've said so far belies the fact that you do. When you say things like "God loves us" and describe how God acts on that love, you're implying that God is a personal entity with will... IOW, an anthropomorphism.

I very much agree with 9-10ths_Penguin's criticism here, but this a very common claim from theists in these religious debates. They wish to deny anthropomorphism at the same time that they attribute all sorts of human traits to their God. It is one place where they feel they can have it both ways--to have a personal (and very human) relationship with God while at the same time exempting that being from critical analysis based on human values. Anthropomorphism is not just about thinking of God as a bearded old man in the sky. It is about attributing human judgments, values, and behavioral tendencies to that being. God is beyond human, except when he isn't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I very much agree with 9-10ths_Penguin's criticism here, but this a very common claim from theists in these religious debates. They wish to deny anthropomorphism at the same time that they attribute all sorts of human traits to their God. It is one place where they feel they can have it both ways--to have a personal (and very human) relationship with God while at the same time exempting that being from critical analysis based on human values. Anthropomorphism is not just about thinking of God as a bearded old man in the sky. It is about attributing human judgments, values, and behavioral tendencies to that being. God is beyond human, except when he isn't.

I have chosen to answer this post rather than the long winded reply by 9/10ths...
I said in a recent post..."I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever". ... I have not attributed "all sorts of human traits" to God... quite the contrary.

I have also said..."I have not indicated that I am speaking for anyone but myself."

It is you and 9/10ths that are insisting that Human values, in the form of our moral codes, apply to God. I have argued all along the opposite view.

Nor do I speak for God, at most I have hinted at some of the personal conclusions, that I have come to, about God's nature, as have you and others in this thread.

Evil would seem to be a subset of sin. Evil is exceedingly hard to define...It is "I know it when I see it" ... sort of thing. I have never seen it in the Context of God or his actions. I have seen it in actions done by others and then "ascribed" to God.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If God is that alien to humans, then there is hardly any point in worrying or making guesses about his desires or values, or in fact even his existence. His moral perception would not be transcendental so much as actually inapplicable to our reality. Ultimately, he would be useless as a moral reference.

Exactly...that is what I have been saying

So no. If belief in God is to have any moral meaning or consequence whatsoever, then unavoidably God himself must be moral -and supremely moral at that. Moral questioning of his actions and desires is not only acceptable, but direly needed

Accepting that we have no Idea what the compass of God's morality might be. Humanity has come up with its own Moral standards, which have varied by both religion and society.

Christians have settled on a Morality based on Judo-Christian values modified strongly by Greek concepts of hell, sin and the trinity and loosely bound by the teachings of Jesus.
It has some similarity to the Judo-Islamic morals based on the Quran. However the differences are easy to discern in detail. Some other religions have more radical differences.

However if there is only a single God, it is clear that these moral differenced can not be attributed to him in any way.

I have maintained throughout this thread that Human Moral codes are a "human" construct based on the needs of individual societies, and Imposed on their religions to reinforce their moral authority.

I know nothing of, or about God's moral code. Nor has one been demonstrated to me.
God's moral code could not be other than self defined.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have maintained throughout this thread that Human Moral codes are a "human" construct based on the needs of individual societies, and Imposed on their religions to reinforce their moral authority.

Mostly. They don't always or necessarily have religious origin.

I know nothing of, or about God's moral code. Nor has one been demonstrated to me.
God's moral code could not be other than self defined.

That is quite possibly correct. However, morality can and in fact must be defined independently of God. So for practical purposes we can and must also judge or at least estimate the general parameters of God's morality, for religious purposes at the very least. If we could not, worshipping God would be problematic at best.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Mostly. They don't always or necessarily have religious origin.

I was suggesting the reverse.
Societies set their own parameters for their morality.
These are then taken up by their religions and imposed on their Gods

That is quite possibly correct. However, morality can and in fact must be defined independently of God. So for practical purposes we can and must also judge or at least estimate the general parameters of God's morality, for religious purposes at the very least. If we could not, worshipping God would be problematic at best

The Christian faiths make the assumption that God shares the ethos of their particular society and religion, But make no attempt to call him out on it, which would be clearly pointless.

Christians have built in the Jewish derived Old Testament in to their own scripture.
This when read literally, as many are prone to do, gives a moral aspect to God that most would prefer to ignore. However many, like myself, read the old testament as Jewish scripture, but do not have their skills of interpretation. As such we give it respect but no great understanding, so must leave most of the difficult questions about the morality it contains unresolved.

The New Testament is similarly written under the influence of Jewish and Greek understandings of God, to such an extent, that the simplicity of Jesus' teachings are often taken out of context and can seem contradictory.

Nevertheless the Ethos and morality of the western world shares a basic Christian bias. That it not only tries to impose on the rest of the world, but also on God.

 

[Freedomelf]

It may very well be some generational sins or curses do get carried forward in their offspring and the Lord saw fit to do away with it in its entirety.

Anyone who believes that the sins of the parents get somehow transferred and become the sins of the child is living in a different reality than I. I'm not saying that you do not have a right to believe it; I'm just saying that any rational thinking person would never throw the baby out with the bath water, just because the bathwater is dirty. And I wouldn't want a god that did that, either. I could never be sure of such a god's love, because I could never know for certain if my cousin's brother's roommate did something for which I would be blamed.

Peace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have chosen to answer this post rather than the long winded reply by 9/10ths...
I said in a recent post..."I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever". ... I have not attributed "all sorts of human traits" to God... quite the contrary.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. My argument is that when you use the term "God", this itself indicates an anthromophism. IMO, "God" is a term that's used for the personification of concepts like "creator" or "perfection"... IOW, when you say "God" instead of, say, "first cause", the baggage that goes along with the term "God" implies a personal entity with a will and who is capable of expressing that will.

IMO, "God" is the term we use when we translate certain big concepts into a relatable form. When you then say that we can't relate to God, I think you're undermining what the very word "God" means.

But I think you contradict your own argument with other things you've said, though. You've had no problem with depicting a God that's easy to relate to when it suits your purposes, talking about things like his emotions, desires, motivations, etc. If we consider that aspect of what you're saying, it sounds as if God is like any other person. It's only when God is painted in a bad light that you appeal to some special exemption for him.

I have also said..."I have not indicated that I am speaking for anyone but myself."

I disagree.

First, you tell me that morality is subjective and a human construct. If this was true, then it would be completely valid for me - as the author of my own morality - to say that God is immoral by the standard of my morality. He might not be immoral by your standard, but as you argued (when it suited your purposes), we can't transfer one person's morality to another, which implies that your determinations of what are and aren't moral to you have no weight when we're discussing what I find moral and immoral.

If morality is a subjective, personal determination, then so be it: in my morality, God is immoral. You're free to believe something else in your own morality, but it doesn't change God's status in my framework.

It is you and 9/10ths that are insisting that Human values, in the form of our moral codes, apply to God. I have argued all along the opposite view.

I've argued the opposite as well: I've said that the state of reality indicates that God, if he exists, does not value people. It was you who argued that he did.

 

[Copernicus]

I have chosen to answer this post rather than the long winded reply by 9/10ths...
I said in a recent post..."I do not anthropomorphorise God, I do not believe he has any similarity to us whatsoever". ... I have not attributed "all sorts of human traits" to God... quite the contrary.

My point was that your other claims belie these denials. 9-10ths is quite correct that the term "god" implies anthropomorphism. Gods have always been idealizations of human beings, so the real question is what has changed with your usage of the term that avoids anthropomorphism? You attribute emotions, morals, thoughts, and other traits to this entity that are very human-like. For example, when you say that "we have no Idea what the compass of God's morality might be", you strongly imply that you think God is the type of being that can have a sense of morality. What animals have moral codes other than human beings? And what is morality about if not rules governing our relationship with other human beings? So I don't take your denials at face value.

I have also said..."I have not indicated that I am speaking for anyone but myself."

When you make generalizations about Christian morality, you are speaking for them in a sense. It may be your personal opinion, but it is still speaking on behalf of Christians, among which you seem to count yourself.

It is you and 9/10ths that are insisting that Human values, in the form of our moral codes, apply to God. I have argued all along the opposite view.

But we are fully within our rights to judge a putative god in terms of our moral values, are we not? I may not share a psychopath's conception of moral behavior, but I can judge that psychopath in terms of my own.

Nor do I speak for God, at most I have hinted at some of the personal conclusions, that I have come to, about God's nature, as have you and others in this thread.

I can't really understand how you justify the claim not to speak for God. You believe that this being exists, and you have been telling us all sorts of things about him and his nature. Those things may be your personal opinions of God's nature, but anyone one who speaks for others only expresses an opinion of what those people think. To the extent that you engage in persuasive dialog with others, you advocate that they adopt the same views about God that you espouse.

Evil would seem to be a subset of sin. Evil is exceedingly hard to define...It is "I know it when I see it" ... sort of thing. I have never seen it in the Context of God or his actions. I have seen it in actions done by others and then "ascribed" to God.

I don't get it. What do you see in the context of God or his actions? What makes you think that you have any more insight into that subject than any of us does? Do you have some special perceptual power that we lack? Access to different information? When God intervenes in the affairs of humans, as he is alleged to do quite frequently in religious scripture, one can make inferences about that putative being's intentions and motives that are based on scriptural accounts. We all do it, and we are trying to figure out why you think God deserves some special exemption from these scripture-based judgments. And how do you come up with a concept of "sin" that avoids reference to God's intentions and desires with respect to human behavior?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't get it. What do you see in the context of God or his actions? What makes you think that you have any more insight into that subject than any of us does? Do you have some special perceptual power that we lack? Access to different information? When God intervenes in the affairs of humans, as he is alleged to do quite frequently in religious scripture, one can make inferences about that putative being's intentions and motives that are based on scriptural accounts. We all do it, and we are trying to figure out why you think God deserves some special exemption from these scripture-based judgments. And how do you come up with a concept of "sin" that avoids reference to God's intentions and desires with respect to human behavior?

We all have insights about the nature of God...that is why there are so many religions.
I clearly think about God differently to you.
I have no evidence that he ever interferes physically in the affairs of man, or has ever done so. Neither have I evidence to the contrary.

I find it unlikely that he involved him self with human affairs in scriptural times, but never since. The greater likelihood is that he has never done so.
(The holy spirit gives comfort and guidance but little else it would seem)

Nor do I believe that the ancients had greater insights or authority, than we do, when speaking about God.

You might have noticed I have not made any scriptural based judgements or references, in this thread.

As God made no known input into the scriptures, It would be difficult to find him responsible for any thing they say.

I have repeated my views about sin on many occasions in these forums. I am not about to change them in the context of this thread.

I use the term God as the most appropriate and understandable and because it only contains three letters. I imply nothing by it, but a total supremacy.

I have not said that God Values Humans higher than any other being in the Universe.
It may well be that we fall a long way down the list of worthy beings.

I suspect all beings that live in a structured society have morals, this include animals and aliens. I also suspect that they might have some similarites to our own but even greater differences. I am not convinced Morals apply out side of a structured society. Which is one reason I see God as Amoral.

 

[Copernicus]

We all have insights about the nature of God...that is why there are so many religions.
I clearly think about God differently to you.
I have no evidence that he ever interferes physically in the affairs of man, or has ever done so. Neither have I evidence to the contrary.

Terry, here is the signature at the end of your post:

Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Can you explain why you think the Bible has anything at all to tell us about God? And exactly what do you think "I am with you" means here? It certainly means something different to other believers than you, if what you say is true.
​

I find it unlikely that he involved him self with human affairs in scriptural times, but never since. The greater likelihood is that he has never done so.
(The holy spirit gives comfort and guidance but little else it would seem)

So you appear to leave the door open a crack that God intervened in scriptural times, but you shut it for later times. Is it not the case that giving us comfort and guidance is an act of intervention in our lives? You seem conflicted between more conventional theism and outright deism.

Nor do I believe that the ancients had greater insights or authority, than we do, when speaking about God.

You might have noticed I have not made any scriptural based judgements or references, in this thread.

Except your signature?

As God made no known input into the scriptures, It would be difficult to find him responsible for any thing they say.

And you seemed to leave that door open a crack above. Now you shut it firmly.

I have repeated my views about sin on many occasions in these forums. I am not about to change them in the context of this thread.

Sorry to ask for a repetition. I haven't found anything that answered my specific question in the thread, and I don't have time for a more exhaustive examination.

I use the term God as the most appropriate and understandable and because it only contains three letters. I imply nothing by it, but a total supremacy.

I can't accept such claims. The number of letters in the word has no relevance to your usage. Why not use any other three-letter word in the language? And where did you get the idea that this being has "supremacy" over humans--an anthropomorphic concept if there ever was one. Why should it have any relationship at all to humans? And you still claim that biblical claims of supremacy have not influenced your thinking on the subject of God? You seem to think that the book has some relevance at the same time that you deny it.

I have not said that God Values Humans higher than any other being in the Universe.
It may well be that we fall a long way down the list of worthy beings.

Yet you reveal your belief here that you believe God to "value" beings like us or assign "worth" to us. What possible worth could such a being assign us, and how could you come into such information about a being who name you use only because of the number of letters in it? What value scale would such a being place us on?

I suspect all beings that live in a structured society have morals, this include animals and aliens. I also suspect that they might have some similarites to our own but even greater differences. I am not convinced Morals apply out side of a structured society. Which is one reason I see God as Amoral.

Well, we have some agreement on the nature of morality, at least. I would not be surprised to find that there is some form of moral values in every intelligent social species, but that depends on how one defines morality. As for the putative God that you posit, the fact that you impute a relationship of "supremacy" to it and that you think it provides "comfort and guidance" to us suggests more about your beliefs than you seem willing to admit to. You may not realize it, but such words do suggest God's participation in the moral structure of our society. And it does seem that the Bible has some influence on your thinking about God, even if you are very reluctant to admit it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terry, here is the signature at the end of your post:

Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.​

Can you explain why you think the Bible has anything at all to tell us about God? And exactly what do you think "I am with you" means here? It certainly means something different to other believers than you, if what you say is true.​

So you appear to leave the door open a crack that God intervened in scriptural times, but you shut it for later times. Is it not the case that giving us comfort and guidance is an act of intervention in our lives? You seem conflicted between more conventional theism and outright deism.

Except your signature?

And you seemed to leave that door open a crack above. Now you shut it firmly.

Sorry to ask for a repetition. I haven't found anything that answered my specific question in the thread, and I don't have time for a more exhaustive examination.

I can't accept such claims. The number of letters in the word has no relevance to your usage. Why not use any other three-letter word in the language? And where did you get the idea that this being has "supremacy" over humans--an anthropomorphic concept if there ever was one. Why should it have any relationship at all to humans? And you still claim that biblical claims of supremacy have not influenced your thinking on the subject of God? You seem to think that the book has some relevance at the same time that you deny it.

Yet you reveal your belief here that you believe God to "value" beings like us or assign "worth" to us. What possible worth could such a being assign us, and how could you come into such information about a being who name you use only because of the number of letters in it? What value scale would such a being place us on?

Well, we have some agreement on the nature of morality, at least. I would not be surprised to find that there is some form of moral values in every intelligent social species, but that depends on how one defines morality. As for the putative God that you posit, the fact that you impute a relationship of "supremacy" to it and that you think it provides "comfort and guidance" to us suggests more about your beliefs than you seem willing to admit to. You may not realize it, but such words do suggest God's participation in the moral structure of our society. And it does seem that the Bible has some influence on your thinking about God, even if you are very reluctant to admit it.

I have explained in many previous threads how I view my religion ( including this one.)

I am essentially an old school "Christian unitarian", who likes the fellowship and worship of the Anglicans. My ethos can be found in the Non subscribing Presbyterians (unitarian). This subscribes to no Dogma but it followers are free to derive their faith from the Bible in their own way.
(Christian Unitarian beliefs were very strong amongst your founding fathers.)

I see God as the instigator of creation. That God is Amoral. That our souls are of God,and return to God. That he communicates with us through the Holy Spirit. That Jesus is a Son of God sent to teach us.
Christians morals have been influenced by Jesus teachings ... especially where they differ from Jewish ones. They derive from Christian society not God.

Sins are not a list of wrong actions, they are actions and omissions, that harm others or our world.
Heaven and hell do not exist.
Salvation is meaningless.
Modern Christianity has disregarded Angels. They are messengers of God and may be in any form. (I have no evidence that they have a physical existence)
We do not know Gods plan, however it is reasonable to suppose that we should leave the world a better place than we found it.

I have no idea why English speakers call God, God rather than any other word.
People ascribe different things to God when the speak of him.

I would not expect you to fall in with the above on a first reading. it has taken me 78 years to come to these tentative answers.

This is a very short version

 

[Copernicus]

I have explained in many previous threads how I view my religion ( including this one.)

Thanks for clarifying it in this one. I was getting quite puzzled, and this gives me a far better picture of where you are coming from.

I am essentially an old school "Christian unitarian", who likes the fellowship and worship of the Anglicans. My ethos can be found in the Non subscribing Presbyterians (unitarian). This subscribes to no Dogma but it followers are free to derive their faith from the Bible in their own way.
(Christian Unitarian beliefs were very strong amongst your founding fathers.)

"Unitarian" is a much more explanatory label to me than "Anglican heretic" in this case. I am more familiar with Unitarians, especially the non-Christian ones, and heresy seems to be a defining feature of that more or less adoctrinal religion. More to the point, I infer that the rejection of Trinitarian doctrine is a core part of your belief about God.

You also reveal here that you place more faith in the Bible than your previous statements about that book had implied to me. I'm not sure what criteria one could have for deriving any faith at all from it, and not other holy books (e.g. Bhagavad Gita--literally 'Holy Bible'), but I now have a picture of you being much more flexible on such subjects.

I see God as the instigator of creation. That God is Amoral. That our souls are of God,and return to God. That he communicates with us through the Holy Spirit. That Jesus is a Son of God sent to teach us.
Christians morals have been influenced by Jesus teachings ... especially where they differ from Jewish ones. They derive from Christian society not God.

That seems to contradict some of the things you were saying, and that is why I became so puzzled. If you believe that God had no input to the Bible, however, why rely on it at all to "derive faith"? You must believe at some level that it was divinely inspired. I perceive some serious cognitive dissonance here, but that kind of feeling is what ultimately pushed me out of the culturally similar (Espiscopalian) religious tradition that I was raised in.

Sins are not a list of wrong actions, they are actions and omissions, that harm others or our world.

However, the word "sin" carries the semantic baggage of a "list of wrong actions defined by a divinity". Hence, you will always trigger puzzled reactions by your use of traditional religious terms that you have modified in personal ways. I now understand you to be using the word in a more metaphorical sense.

Heaven and hell do not exist.
Salvation is meaningless.

And with it, the core of the Christian narrative IMO, which doesn't make much sense in the absence of a concept of the Fall and redemption from its consequences. But I am better able to relate to your use of Christian rhetoric now, even if I do judge it somewhat misleading.

Modern Christianity has disregarded Angels. They are messengers of God and may be in any form. (I have no evidence that they have a physical existence)
We do not know Gods plan, however it is reasonable to suppose that we should leave the world a better place than we found it.

To the extent that you conceive of God as having a "plan", you are attributing anthropomorphic traits to God. You really ought not to deny that your conception of God is anthropomorphic, unless you can be very clear about how you distinguish anthropomorphism from the imputation of human traits to God. However, I am willing to give you more of a pass on this than I would normally give to Christians who deny anthropomorphism.

I have no idea why English speakers call God, God rather than any other word. People ascribe different things to God when the speak of him.

All word meanings derive from socially-established usage. The concepts of gods and God have a very long, well-established usage, but the usage of words denoting religious concepts is notoriously wobbly. Unitarians wobble a bit further from the norm than most people.

I would not expect you to fall in with the above on a first reading. it has taken me 78 years to come to these tentative answers.

This is a very short version

Thanks for that. It was much more helpful, and I am glad to find someone who actually makes me feel younger. Now I have to treat you with more respect, damn it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thanks for clarifying it in this one. I was getting quite puzzled, and this gives me a far better picture of where you are coming from.

"Unitarian" is a much more explanatory label to me than "Anglican heretic" in this case. I am more familiar with Unitarians, especially the non-Christian ones, and heresy seems to be a defining feature of that more or less adoctrinal religion. More to the point, I infer that the rejection of Trinitarian doctrine is a core part of your belief about God.

I have a problem when using the term "unitarian" these days as it is associated with UU, which I am most certainly not. I am agnostic to the trinity. I believe in God and the Holy spirit and the teachings of Jesus But I do not see them as a trinity. Of course there must be a relationship between them, but I am not sure what it is.
I have put that decision on hold.

You also reveal here that you place more faith in the Bible than your previous statements about that book had implied to me. I'm not sure what criteria one could have for deriving any faith at all from it, and not other holy books (e.g. Bhagavad Gita--literally 'Holy Bible'), but I now have a picture of you being much more flexible on such subjects.

I suspect all religions might have some of the truth of God .
The Bible has undergone a great deal of thought both before and after it was written.
Since reading Aaron Milavec translation and analysis of the Didache I realise Christianity originally functioned perfectly well with out the Bible, But that the Bible Gave Christianity an almost universal form and set of required beliefs and Dogmas.
It has certainly become required reading for a Christian.
However it is not perfect, nor very helpful in thinking about God.
The old testament shows us what the Jews believed about God and the New Testament how the Greeks and later Romans interpreted the new teachings of Jesus. We do not have access to scripture that is not influenced by these interpretations.
Modern thought is no less valid on these matters than the ancient.

That seems to contradict some of the things you were saying, and that is why I became so puzzled. If you believe that God had no input to the Bible, however, why rely on it at all to "derive faith"? You must believe at some level that it was divinely inspired. I perceive some serious cognitive dissonance here, but that kind of feeling is what ultimately pushed me out of the culturally similar (Espiscopalian) religious tradition that I was raised in.

I do not believe the Bible is divinely inspired. It was certainly written by people with strong faith who wished to write down the stories they had collected, for the benefit of future generations. However it is a mile for having the instructional content and unchanging purpose of the Quran. The Bible needs and benefits from interpretation at every stage.

Like the Anglican the Episcopalian are very broad churches, and rarely care how our individual beliefs differ. Any thing between puritan Calvinism and Anglo Catholic will do. It is more based on worship than strict theology, so it does support many free thinkers. Both the Methodist and many of the early Christian Unitarians came through its ranks.

However, the word "sin" carries the semantic baggage of a "list of wrong actions defined by a divinity". Hence, you will always trigger puzzled reactions by your use of traditional religious terms that you have modified in personal ways. I now understand you to be using the word in a more metaphorical sense.

And with it, the core of the Christian narrative IMO, which doesn't make much sense in the absence of a concept of the Fall and redemption from its consequences. But I am better able to relate to your use of Christian rhetoric now, even if I do judge it somewhat misleading.

The whole concept of original sin and the need for salvation are derived from the Jewish story of Adam and Eve and the Greek concept of hell. I class the first as pure fable, and the second as nothing to do with Christianity.

The Story of Jesus, to me, is a living example of service to God,teaching, prayer and sacrifice.
It demonstrates very powerfully the equality of Peoples, and how civilised people should relate to each other, and the lengths we should be prepared to go to to achieve this. (Jesus sacrifice).
It is not a narrative of how to avoid the punishment associated with sin.
I am happy to accept that this is not the usual reading.

To the extent that you conceive of God as having a "plan", you are attributing anthropomorphic traits to God. You really ought not to deny that your conception of God is anthropomorphic, unless you can be very clear about how you distinguish anthropomorphism from the imputation of human traits to God. However, I am willing to give you more of a pass on this than I would normally give to Christians who deny anthropomorphism.

I do not give human traits to God . However it is hard to conceive that any God or similar being established the creation for no reason. I would find it easy enough to suppose that God included all living Beings in the universe, Collectively, in that "Purpose". I doubt he has individual plans for us. but it would be reasonable to suppose that our purpose is to improve not destroy, what we find.

All word meanings derive from socially-established usage. The concepts of gods and God have a very long, well-established usage, but the usage of words denoting religious concepts is notoriously wobbly. Unitarians wobble a bit further from the norm than most people.

I suspect people fall on a very wide spectrum about how they conceive God to be. Not just Unitarians.

Thanks for that. It was much more helpful, and I am glad to find someone who actually makes me feel younger. Now I have to treat you with more respect, damn it.

Many people step on to the path of atheism because they think that Christian thinking has to conform.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

First, you tell me that morality is subjective and a human construct. If this was true, then it would be completely valid for me - as the author of my own morality - to say that God is immoral by the standard of my morality. He might not be immoral by your standard, but as you argued (when it suited your purposes), we can't transfer one person's morality to another, which implies that your determinations of what are and aren't moral to you have no weight when we're discussing what I find moral and immoral.

If morality is a subjective, personal determination, then so be it: in my morality, God is immoral. You're free to believe something else in your own morality, but it doesn't change God's status in my framework.

It is egotistical to suppose that God should conform to any human standard.
As a being of "some sort" it is reasonable to suppose he is capable of having standards of his own.
Judgements on the "Quality" of God's actions are of course possible from a human standpoint. But I rather think it is a futile pursuit.

If you do not believe in God any musings about God and morality, remain musings.

I've argued the opposite as well: I've said that the state of reality indicates that God, if he exists, does not value people. It was you who argued that he did.

I do not suppose God values Humans any higher than any other being in the universe.
However as I believe that both God and man exist. I would find it hard to believe that he does not value us at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is egotistical to suppose that God should conform to any human standard.

Who said "should"? I'm merely noting that he doesn't conform to my standard.

You argued at length how morality is completely subjective and individual, remember? Well, if you really believe this, then you need to stop acting as if you have any grounds whatsoever to declare my moral judgments incorrect. If you do it much more, I'm going to start thinking that you really do believe in objective morality... despite your protestations otherwise.

As a being of "some sort" it is reasonable to suppose he is capable of having standards of his own.

Sure... though I don't see how this is any different from, say, a murderer, rapist, or anyone else normally deemed immoral. Pretty much everyone considers himself a good person by his own standard.

Judgements on the "Quality" of God's actions are of course possible from a human standpoint. But I rather think it is a futile pursuit.

That may be, but it's irrelevant. We've been over this already: "God may be immoral, but he doesn't care" does not equal "God is moral."

If you do not believe in God any musings about God and morality, remain musings.

I'm just as able to talk about God's morality as I am the morality of any fictional character.

Also, since - as I mentioned earlier - I generally take the term "God" to signify an anthropomorphism of the believer's ideas of things like perfection and virtue, I think that the morality of a person's God can sometimes give insightful glimpses into the morality of the person who believes in that God.

I do not suppose God values Humans any higher than any other being in the universe.
However as I believe that both God and man exist. I would find it hard to believe that he does not value us at all.

But the universe is literally filled with things that exist. By that standard, there's nothing to suggest that God values a unique intelligent person any more than he values some individual atom of hydrogen, completely indistinguishable from and interchangeable with every other of the countless hydrogen atoms in the universe.

 

[kjw47]

God created humans in the garden of Eden to be perfect, knowing only good, but dignified us all with free will.The free will to choose to listen to his advice, the freewill to choose to give him our love.
Satan( rebelled), lied to Eve and she rebelled against God and got Adam to rebel as well. When satan told Eve we would become like God, knowing good and bad--he was saying to her that we wouldnt need God to direct our steps if we knew both sides-- this was a direct challenge to Gods authority as sovereign of the universe--all of creation( spirit beings) were looking on to these events.
God could have killed all of them on the spot and none of who ever was born would have been born, the seed would have died with them, instead God let this world go to the extreme to give satan and man every opportunity to see if without him we could lead ourselves to find true happiness knowing both good and bad-- without an iota of a doubt we need God--to know only good was the best way for all created beings. So by letting things go to the extremes it will prove once and for all time that God was right all along--then it can never be brought up again against him. Dont forget either it was kill them and none of us ever born, or let it be proved once for all time. Gods justice says it needed to be proved. so here we are being rushed to the end of this sick system of things. The day and hour are set. The only thing a human needs to learn to do is the will of God now everyday 24/7--- because these are the ones who will gain eternal life in Gods kingdom-Matt 7:21

God isnt interferring too much--he doesnt interfere with free will.

 

[Ingledsva]

God created humans in the garden of Eden to be perfect, knowing only good, but dignified us all with free will.The free will to choose to listen to his advice, the freewill to choose to give him our love.
Satan( rebelled), lied to Eve and she rebelled against God and got Adam to rebel as well. When satan told Eve we would become like God, knowing good and bad--he was saying to her that we wouldnt need God to direct our steps if we knew both sides-- this was a direct challenge to Gods authority as sovereign of the universe--all of creation( spirit beings) were looking on to these events.
God could have killed all of them on the spot and none of who ever was born would have been born, the seed would have died with them, instead God let this world go to the extreme to give satan and man every opportunity to see if without him we could lead ourselves to find true happiness knowing both good and bad-- without an iota of a doubt we need God--to know only good was the best way for all created beings. So by letting things go to the extremes it will prove once and for all time that God was right all along--then it can never be brought up again against him. Dont forget either it was kill them and none of us ever born, or let it be proved once for all time. Gods justice says it needed to be proved. so here we are being rushed to the end of this sick system of things. The day and hour are set. The only thing a human needs to learn to do is the will of God now everyday 24/7--- because these are the ones who will gain eternal life in Gods kingdom-Matt 7:21

God isnt interferring too much--he doesnt interfere with free will.

Actually it does not say Satan in Genesis.

It is "nachash" - and the Bible say this one, will to the end of it's life, crawl on it's belly and taste the dust. That equals a serpent/snake - not Satan.

A study of Nachash is actually quite interesting as the word means a Sorcerer, and to Hiss an incantation, to divine, enchant, etc.

Some ancient historians say the Hebrew are from India.

In India, a related word "Naga" means a Serpent Sorcerer. Interesting.