Element said...

You're committing the Oversimplification Fallacy. 

Thanks for your forbearance with such a simpleton. 

Element said...
You responded by citing an example of a solitary, isolated action.  You don't HAVE to commit adultery in order to enjoy a faithful relationship.  However, when someone commits adultery and experiences the negativity of the pain and suffering it causes, they'll appreciate the value of faithful relationships ALL THE MORE.  Just like those who nearly die gain additional passion for the value of life, so too those who suffer evil gain an additional passion for the value of good. 

Would the following horrific story be just another example of the needed yin and yang balance of your god?  http://wcco.com/crime/local_story_267185240.html 

Updated story: http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_277151206.html

The more you define your “big and more advanced god’ the more problematic he becomes.     

Element said...

My theology logically matches the state of reality but your's seems to have more in common with mythology than with reality.

It’s interesting you would try to paste mythology on my theology.  I think your theology might very well be closer to the great master of mythology then anyone on this board.  Yes indeed, Joseph Campbell is all over your theology.   

"I have a feeling that consciousness and energy are the same thing somehow. Where you really see life energy, there's consciousness. Certainly the vegetable world is conscious. You can see it in the Bible. In the beginning, God was simply the most powerful god among many. He is just a local tribal god. We have today to learn to get back into accord with the wisdom of nature and realize again our brotherhood with the animals and with the water and the sea." - Joseph Cambell 

  Is that Pantheism or what? 

 

Element said...

sparknheart said...
Ok I understand that you’re trying to separate the guilt of your god’s creation from any form of judgment.  But did you not say:  “Acts of nature that result in death/pain are most definitely part of God's design for the natural universe.”    So are you not saying your god creates arbitrary acts of natural evil, a booby-trapped world by design?

My position is this - Based on the design of the world, God created the potential for the occurence of death/pain resulting from natural disasters... natural evil in the world is NOT arbitrary, but vital to the whole design of the earth.   

Picture if you will, the master of the house greeting visitors at his door with a lovely smile.  Amongst these visitors is a father of a young girl who lies motionless in her father’s arms as he cries out for justice.  The master of the house admits he has an alter ego that lurks in the darkness of his dungeon that he prefers to call his laboratory. The master denies any wrong doing coming from his laboratory. He asserts his monster is not subject to such silly manmade rationale. The master portentously downplays the actualization of his creature running wild in the village, he claims if the ignorant peasants new a thing or two about science they would understand that his monster was a needed advancement in the science of life.  They need to recognize the potential of his creature and overlook any future potential the little girl might have had.  My monster adds the needed juxtapose, the yin and yang balance to the village so you people don’t become numb and thankless in love. You people need to have an eye for the raw sublime artistic beauty of my monster. The peasants plead with the master by stating the dark creator is not of the same mind as the compassionate master.  The master stares back with insult and fires back how dare you simpletons compare two different topical assertions made from two totally different subjects.  I’m the master of this house and ruler of the land and I’m also the doctor of life and creator of all. Thou we are one of the same we are two separate entities that do not need to be reconciled. The mad doctor exclaims he has no room to address guilt for any collateral damage due to his creation.  The master continues on justifying with circler reasoning how the simpleton father of the little girl would never understand how much he loved her without the pain of her sacrificial death and what a divine service his evil monster has done by teaching other fathers in the village such value.  Some fathers looked at each other and scratched their heads, but the father of the little girl was enraged and screamed out to the master,” you said you did not believe in blood sacrifices”.  As the master slowly closes his large front door he says, return to your mythological god and bury your daughter.  And in perfect harmony with the slamming of the door you here the master shout, “and don’t ever mistake me for myself again.”

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 10/4/2005 3:15:21 PM (GMT-5)

Woah, so God gets angry about the fact they sacrifice their kids to Molech.....so he responds by killing these kids himself by bringing on famines and prompting wild beasts to eat them alive?  Those poor children!!  They had no control over which gods their parents worshipped.  The kids are the innocent ones in this whole scenario, yet the Biblical God thinks it a "fair" punishment to intend for wild beasts to come and eat these same children alive.  It doesn't make a lick of sense. 

sparknheart said...
Thanks for your forbearance with such a simpleton. 

sparknheart said...

Would the following horrific story be just another example of the needed yin and yang balance of your god?  http://wcco.com/crime/local_story_267185240.html 

Updated story: http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_277151206.html

The more you define your “big and more advanced god’ the more problematic he becomes.     

Again, your entire analogy, though cute and well versed, overlooks the fact that I already stated that excessive violence is against God's will.  A girl dying by a wild beast is an act of excessive violence.  Nor is it NECESSARY.  Thats why we are a social species; we work together and look out for eachother; we build communities, we build shelters, etc.  God has hardwired us to protect ourselves from the elements, and from wild beasts.  That is how we were designed to live.   This doesn't mean that accidents don't happen; that children aren't left to run around alone where some harm befalls them.

Its ironic that you are good at remembering certain statements of mine, but ignoring others, like when I expressly stated "excessive violence is against God's will".   What is even more ironic is the fact that you have this nifty ability to formulate these analogies regarding your perception of my God, yet lose this amazing talent when it comes to objectively dissecting the moral actions of your OWN God.   Indeed, if you applied even a fraction of that same logic to your own God, you'd have a FIELD DAY with all the absurd analogies you could create.

But just for craps and giggles.....lets discuss a few of the contradictions we see in the Biblical God.

1) We are told to follow Christ's example; forgive our enemies and turn the other cheek; yet Jesus example is that he will ultimately destroy and eternally torture his enemies at the second coming. 

2) The Canannites were evil for sacrificing their children to another God; so God retaliates by making sure the children starve to death or are eaten alive by wild beasts instead!  True empathy and rationality there.

3) A Levite accidentally stumbles while carrying the ark, and God strikes him dead immediately for this "sin".  Yet, King David commits adultery and then has Bethsheba's husband murdered.  And God gives him a little slap on the wrist.

4) Jesus forgives the woman who was caught in the act of adultery; but Ananias and Sapphira get struck dead instantly for not giving the disciples as much money as they initially said they would.  One might conclude that not giving God enough money is the "unforgivable sin" based on this event.  But no. The unforgivable sin is "blaspheming" the holy spirit.  So why weren't Ananias and Sapphira allowed to repent or be forgiven?  Afterall, even if they were the enemies of Christ (which they were not), Christ said he will forgive them and turn the other cheek; not strike them dead.

5) God institutes physical death as the punishment for "sin".  But then changes his mind later, and institutes an eternal torture chamber where eternal torment (aka, the second death) suddenly becomes the necessary punishment for sin.  So the wages of sin is NOT "death"; it is ETERNAL TORMENT. 

I could go on and on......but you get the point.  Imagine all the endless analogies I could create using these Biblical contradictions.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 10/11/2005 8:26:17 AM (GMT-5)

And the question is who/what exactly defines “excessive” violence?  That’s the moral/ethical issue I find merely subjective to your self-constructed god.  You become god as you construe the ever changing rules (or no rules) whenever and however you arbitrarily deem fit.  It’s an age old story, wanting to be like god, it dates back to Eve.  But when Toto pulls the curtains away the great and powerful wizard is revealed simply as you, a self imposed manmade god. 

Sorry Element, but that’s how I see it. Umm ok…. I’m paying “close attention”, I’m all ears!  

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 10/12/2005 12:23:22 PM (GMT-5)

Element said…

Its the killing of innocence that is inherently wrong within human morality.  The very fact that Society A would think it is entitled to punish a modern society for "historical" offenses is proof alone that Society A is  dangerous.  Societies living in the present are not responsible for the actions of those who have lived in the past.  Furthermore, an entire society is never at blame.  Its always the leadership of those societies, the greedy political instigators that should be dealt with, not the innocent men, women and childen that make up the society. (who most times are simply trying to survive and take care of their families.)

VFG: Who or what decides these are wrong? There are some cultures that would disagree with you.

---------------------

Element said…

These are interesting questions to ponder.  I can't speak for others, but my personal view is this.....Good comes from God, and a thing is only good insofar as it satisfies the purpose for which God created it.  For example, Interconnectedness is good because God designed us to be interconnected with him and with eachother.  That is purpose for which we were created.  A thing is good when it serves the pupose it was created.  A thing is bad when it goes against the purpose it was created.

VFG: This somewhat answers the question I posted just above.  So then if good comes from God, how does He relay this information to us about what is “right” and “wrong”? 

 ---------------------

Violin for God said...
From doing a quick glance at these verses, the question I’d ask is, (for Ezek 32:5 )“did Pharoh do horrible things to people and against God to warrant this?”

Element: I don't think anything would have warranted such grumesome violence.  Furthermore, the concept of repaying violence with even more grotesque violence is sick.  Its a barbarian idea of revenge.  Violence only begets more violence, and bloodshed only begets more bloodshed.  My principle point here is that I can't believe God would be so small-minded that he would believe grotesque violence is a good method for solving problems.  That is actually a very human-esque concept, not a divine one. 

VFG: So it’s better to leave the evil alone and do nothing about it, even regarding a judgment sometime in the future?  That would make no sense if God is “good”.  And what I get here is that you reject the Bible simply because it doesn’t feel good and doesn’t match up to how you think God should be.  What’s the “divine” way of solving the problem then? (Don’t base it on your opinion or feelings, but base it from divine revelation, whether your sacred text or from a revelation you had.  I’m being serious, not sarcastic about this.  The only way we can know the answer for this is basing it from something the Divine has informed us about.)

-------------------

Violin for God said...
(for Hosea 13:16 )It doesn’t seem that God tells the people to “smash babies” or “rip pregnant women open”, but it seems a result of their own actions

Element: Actually, the context indicates that these horrific acts will be part of God's punishment for their disobedience.  Its very clear.  And as evidenced by Ezekial 32:5, we already know that God acts in extremely violent ways.  So this would not be out of line with the other grotesque threats of physical violence found elsewhere in the scriptures.  Context, context, context.

VFG: Yes, I am taking it from the context.  And around the verse, God is letting out judgment on those who have done really horrible things, on those who are clearly guilty.  (Should God have just let them go and commit things such as bestiality, etc.?)  How does God exercise this judgment?  He “stirs up wind from the wilderness”.  What does this mean?  It’s clear God’s talking in apocalyptic language using metaphorical terms.  My conclusion is that it’s an army.  Now look at what is said in the verse in question.  It’s stated “their little ones will be dashed into pieces and their pregnant women will be ripped open.”  This is a passive voice, not active.  Is God the one actually “dashing the little ones into pieces”?  No.  My conclusion is this:  this would happen regardless of any army God chose to invade, given the surrounding cultures at the time.  As a result of wars, this would happen. 

But let’s take this a step further… so what if God executed these judgments Himself?  When the innocent and righteous die they’re be in a better place anyway: in Heaven.  It’s better to save the individual’s spiritual life anyway than to let the evil culture corrupt and destroy the spiritual life of the children.  Here’s a parallel: If I had a child and this child was kidnapped by a Satanic cult, say God consulted me and gave a choice: He could allow a rescue squad to get in and break up the cult, though this may result in the death of my child or not send in the rescue squad and my child would grow up in that cult.  Honestly, if those were the only choices, I’d rather let my child die and be with God than for my child to live and be convinced in giving up her spirit to Satan.  Yes, it would deeply grieve me if that were to happen, but ultimately I have to entrust my children to God.  Does that still sound barbaric: to care more for my child’s spiritual life than her physical life?  (Of course it is ideal to preserve both… but say this is the only choice available?)

How do you think God should have handled the current situation of a very evil culture that was destroying the good and righteous people?

I’ll skip to the end due to time constraints….

 ------------------------------

Violin for God said...
They don’t honor or even care about God and even barbeque their own children to Molech, so why should He keep providing food for them? I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh, but I think baby barbeques deserve harsh punishment.

Element: Woah, so God gets angry about the fact they sacrifice their kids to Molech.....so he responds by killing these kids himself by bringing on famines and prompting wild beasts to eat them alive?  Those poor children!!  They had no control over which gods their parents worshipped.  The kids are the innocent ones in this whole scenario, yet the Biblical God thinks it a "fair" punishment to intend for wild beasts to come and eat these same children alive.  It doesn't make a lick of sense. 

VFG: First, there is no good reason to get sarcastic.  If you can’t stick to that, this conversation is over.  Sarcasm brings nothing intelligent to the table. 

Second, it’s the difference between them growing up in the culture that’s described and them eventually giving in to the culture or for the practices of the culture to be stopped.  It makes more sense to stop the practices of the culture than to allow the practices to get even worse.