Behind the Veil of Ignorance
Let's look at Christianity from a different prespective. Let's ask ourselves what we could expect if that kind of God existed. Let's say we are placed behind a theological Rawlsian "veil of ignorance." Behind that veil we are to consider what world we should expect to find if God created that world. Behind that veil we must think about the kinds of things we could expect to find, based upon a full description of the God that is supposed to exist. What would you expect to find prior to experiencing such a world?
Now it's true we couldn't dream up the exact kind of world God should create with all of its details, for God is supposedly omniscient beyond our dreams. But we could have some ideas, broadly speaking, especally if humans are also supposed to be created in his "image." What kinds of things would we expect to find when the veil is removed?
I don't have the time to go into detail here, so let me suggest a few ideas and let others add some more in the comments. Even if we didn't think of these things behind the veil, we would still be surprised if this world turned out to be like the one we experience.
No law of predation. All creatures would be vegetarians.
All human beings would be created with one color of skin.
God would create us so that we did not need to sleep, and that we could work longer and harder.
There wouldn't be the problem of divine hiddenness, or religious diversity.
God would reveal himself in every age.
God would unequivocally condemn racism, slavery, and gender discrimination.
God would predict things centuries in advance to show us he exists.
God would create us with better immune systems, or supply us with the knowledge from the start how to treat various diseases with things like Penicillin.
God would create us with the ability to understand more of his ways, and with better memories.
If we had souls (or minds) we wouldn't need to have brains.
The orbits of the planets wouldn't need to look like they formed naturally.
In fact, according to Victor J. Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis, "earth and life look just as they can be expected to look if there is no designer God."
First posted on 4/09/07
Now it's true we couldn't dream up the exact kind of world God should create with all of its details, for God is supposedly omniscient beyond our dreams. But we could have some ideas, broadly speaking, especally if humans are also supposed to be created in his "image." What kinds of things would we expect to find when the veil is removed?
I don't have the time to go into detail here, so let me suggest a few ideas and let others add some more in the comments. Even if we didn't think of these things behind the veil, we would still be surprised if this world turned out to be like the one we experience.
No law of predation. All creatures would be vegetarians.
All human beings would be created with one color of skin.
God would create us so that we did not need to sleep, and that we could work longer and harder.
There wouldn't be the problem of divine hiddenness, or religious diversity.
God would reveal himself in every age.
God would unequivocally condemn racism, slavery, and gender discrimination.
God would predict things centuries in advance to show us he exists.
God would create us with better immune systems, or supply us with the knowledge from the start how to treat various diseases with things like Penicillin.
God would create us with the ability to understand more of his ways, and with better memories.
If we had souls (or minds) we wouldn't need to have brains.
The orbits of the planets wouldn't need to look like they formed naturally.
In fact, according to Victor J. Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis, "earth and life look just as they can be expected to look if there is no designer God."
First posted on 4/09/07
75 comments:
No law of predation.
But the Abrahamic god demands animal sacrifices.
God would create us so that we did not need to sleep
Why? Where is sleep mentioned as something bad, other than references to "sluggards" and laziness?
There wouldn't be the problem of divine hiddenness
Except that this god demands absolute and blind faith. Were he to reveal himself, faith wouldn't be necessary.
or religious diversity
This one always gets me. How is it that more than half the planet has never heard of this omnipotent and omniscient (paradox alert) god?
God would reveal himself in every age.
Ibid. Proof denies faith.
God would predict things centuries in advance to show us he exists.
Thus negating the free will that man is supposed to have and returning to the medieval church's notions of predetermination.
God would... supply us with the knowledge from the start how to treat various diseases
The same god who has a thing for suffering as proof of faith? I doubt it.
God would create us with the ability to understand more of his ways
Once again, this violates the premise of faith. One doesn't need to understand, only accept and obey.
If we had souls (or minds) we wouldn't need to have brains.
I don't follow the reasoning here.
The orbits of the planets wouldn't need to look like they formed naturally.
I don't understand this one, either. If some deity existed and was responsible for the orbits he could make the planets do some pretty whacked-out things instead of orbiting in boring ovals.
REC, several of these suggestions have been fleshed out here before. Let me give you an example of one of them.
John: If we had souls (or minds) we wouldn't need to have brains.
REC: I don't follow the reasoning here.
Before we discovered that the brain was the seat of thought people believed thought resided in the heart.
Anyway, with such a huge problem in understanding the relationship between the mind (or soul) and the brain, why bother creating the brain? If we have a mind that's not reducible to the brain, we don't need a brain at all.
* I would expect a god that keeps his dang prayer promises!
* And I'd expect the Bible to read like it came from one mind and be accurate in Science, Geology and History.
* And I'd expect the messiah to have given us some hints about medicine and engineering. At least there'd be no disputing that. At least, If he wasn't the messiah, I wouldn't be able to deny that he would have been the most brilliant man the planet had ever seen. As it stands right now it may be a guy named Albert (not the fat one).
Heck it was a Hindu that gave us the concept of Zero, and boy did that help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagupta.
* I'd like to see Jesus write his own darn gospels, spend a little time at the desk putting it all down in writing like Aristotle or Pythagoras.
I don't think I'm asking for much, just penicillin, sewage and zero. God, can you cut a sinner some slack? I just don't feel the love.
I'm generally sympathetic to the argument of this post, but I have issues with the last sentence: can the negation of a hypothesis make any predictions? It seems all we can say is that a hypothesis' predictions have turned out to be false, not that the predictions of its negation have turned out to be true.
Chris,
I think we can say based upon hypothesis X that we should find world Y. If we don't find world Y, then you're correct we cannot make any further predictions about hypothesis X, except that it is false.
However, we can propose a different hypothesis to see if it explains world Y. Let us suppose hypothesis Z instead. When we do, then world Y confirms that hypothesis.
Hypothesis X is that a creator God exists.
Hypothesis Z is that this universe formed naturally without a God.
Very intriguing use of Rawl's notion of a veil of ignorance, John! Very helpful way of getting getting someone to filter out millenia of theological varnish and just imagine what one would expect to observe, just on the concept of a theistic god.
Please find one promise in the bible that God has not fulfilled. If there is one, then it is involved with the times, because that obviously hasn't happaned yet.
Stupid me: *end times*
Before we discovered that the brain was the seat of thought people believed thought resided in the heart.
That's as may be, but that idea certainly didn't come from the Bible. Don't get me wrong: I've been an atheist since I was 6. As a result I've gotten into almost every possible argument with the believers and thumpers and misrepresentation doesn't help the cause. Through the Renaissance the Catholic Church promoted a very Aristotelean view (save for his logic, about the only thing he got right). Nowhere in the Bible is there a suggestion of a heliocentric solar system. The belief that our planet is at the center of the universe came from the church and not the book it considers its basis for existence. Hence my comments about not understanding your argument.
Anonymous, because you said, "please", here you go:
Gen 2:17: God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But when Adam eats the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:6) he lives for another 930 years (Gen 5:5).
Deu 31:3-6: God promises to "destroy these nations before thee." He didn't keep his promise. (Jos 15:63, 16:10, Jg 1:21, 1:27-36, and 3:1-5)
2 Kg 22:20: God promises Josiah that he will have a peaceful death. That death was anything but peaceful. (2 Kg 23:29-30, 2 Chr 35:23-24)
Is 13:19-20: Falsely predicts that Babylon will never again be inhabited.
Jer 34:2, 5: God lies to Zedekiah again by telling him that he will die in peace and be buried with his fathers. Zedekiah dies a violent death in a foreign land. (2 Kg 25:7, Jer 52:10-11). But wait! There's more! In Jer 39:6-7 Zedekiah watches as his children are killed and then his eyes are put out. He's then shackled and taken to Babylon. Not terribly peaceful.
Matt 24:34: Jesus predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. It didn't. And according to Ec 1:4 it never will.
Hmm...
Some good copy and pasting without really reading into the rest of the topic. Hmm...
Your argument is totally weak. Here's a real way to slam God.
No law of predation. All creatures would be vegetarians.
- why should we eat at all? why not make us solar-powered?
All human beings would be created with one color of skin.
- why make us colored? why not make us all clear?
God would create us so that we did not need to sleep, and that we could work longer and harder.
- why make us work? why not let us just lay around and sleep if we like?
There wouldn't be the problem of divine hiddenness, or religious diversity.
- why make religion at all? why not just hang out?
God would reveal himself in every age.
- why should we *want* to see him? why not just eliminate the ability to even conceive of a god?
God would unequivocally condemn racism, slavery, and gender discrimination.
- why should he allow those things to exist? why not just create one person so that s/he can't enslave or discriminate?
God would predict things centuries in advance to show us he exists.
- why should god have to create time? why not just create a timeless reality to eliminate the problem altogether?
God would create us with better immune systems, or supply us with the knowledge from the start how to treat various diseases with things like Penicillin.
- why allow disease in the first place? why not just have a world without virii or bacteria?
God would create us with the ability to understand more of his ways, and with better memories.
- why only "better" memories? why not perfect ones?
If we had souls (or minds) we wouldn't need to have brains.
- why should we have bodies? wouldn't it be better if we were just souls?
The orbits of the planets wouldn't need to look like they formed naturally.
- why have multiple planets? why not just have a single world?
I totally debunked Christianity because the world is other than the way than I think it ought to be...
So God should have created us as robots and then put up with whatever we would fancy to do to His world?
Stop eating sugar, stop driving your car, stop eating any refined foods, compost and eat only from your own, organic garden, drink filtered, ionized water and you'll be on your way to being disease free. You have a perfect immune system but if you don't follow the instructions it won't work right and no one can follow the instructions because our world is pretty much a mess as the legacy of progress.
What work is so important that we need to work endless hours and have no desire for the pleasures of just feeling the sun on our skin or hearing the sound of a bird or a child laughing?
How much more obvious can God be? What exactly would you do if He did come stand in Time's Square and reveal Himself? Would you walk up to Him and devote the rest of your life to Him and if so, would He always have to stand in your presence to keep your devotion?
Galatians 3:27-28
"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."
Who in the world was listening to this? Were the Romans taking note? Were the Jews taking note? Who was holding onto the societal customs? Later in Ephesians 6, Paul writes,
"And masters, do the same things to them [slaves], and give up threatening, knowing that both their master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
Slavery was a man made institution. Imagine God coming down today and telling all of us to throw away our computers. Would you love Him and obey Him? That was the mentality of ancient cultures, for the most part. Slaves were property, not people. I suppose God could have told everyone to get rid of their slaves and then what? If He annihilated those who would not, wouldn't you claim He was a killer? I don't understand your reasoning.
Fantastic post One Wave!
Many of Johns arguments can be solved in only the first few chapters of Genesis. Sin caused the mess up of everything on earth. God told Adam that we would have to "toil" on the earth because of his sin, rather than sitting and doing nothing. That because we are sinful, we can not even be in the prescence of God, and that is the purpose of Jesus dying. We are colored for our own good, and we have made it bad. The pigments in our skin are to protect us from the sun. Basically sin can answer almost all of the other arguments. But the key is that even though we sin, he still gives us a way to live not only here on earth, but for eternal life.
too bad the genesis account appears to be merely a reworking of older Mesopotamian myths.
and please, don't tell me: Many Bible scholars don't believe this at all. (at least the Christian ones....)
here is a book that talks quite a lot about the fact that the bible is folklore and myth.
Folklore in the Old Testament Studies in Comparative Religion Legend and Law by James George Frazer
So One Wave, and the various anonymous's, how do you get around the circular reasoning that the bible validates itself?
I posted an article on mar 26 regarding that topic.
That's a hilarious article Preacher. Can you please relate the connections between that and all of Genesis.
Why doesn't it make more sense for them to have copied Genesis?
About copying other cultures I could just as easily say that because God created people in His image, people are continually trying to work out what has been put in, so to speak. Mesopotamia is known as the cradle of civilization. If all people came from the same beginning and then spread out and varied their stories w/o seeking the source, it would follow that the various stories would have similarities.
Lee,
How do you get around the circular reasoning behind gravity?
I can't see it, I can't feel it.
Here's my model:
Premise1: Scientists tell us that there is something called gravity.
Premise2: Gravity is what scientists say keeps us on the ground.
Premise3: Scientists must be right.
Conclusion: Gravity exists.
Or maybe air would be a better example.
Preacher,
I read the article and noticed that it assumes that the account of the garden came from the Hebrews. There are some scholars who believe that Adam wrote down the events of his life and passed them down.
Hi One Wave,
Are you implying that if people can believe in gravity and its proof is circular then it is all right for the bible to be that way as well?
You are avoiding the question.
Gravity is a phenomena that does not say anything about itself. People observe it, make predictions about it, test them, if they are usable, they become part of a store of knowledge, useful for more applications and more predictions about the world we live in. More or less the same thing with air. The analogy is too dissimilar.
Is it all right to base a world view on a book which only has itself to show that it came from God? Would you tell your kids to only trust strangers that say they are honest?
Anonymous:
Stop being lame and get a blogger screen name. Its easy, and it still doesn't give away your real name. No offense is meant, but it is terrible trying to decipher who is who when more than one person is Anonymous.
But to answer your argument, how do you know the Hebrews didn't copy the Mesopotamian myths in Genesis? To me, I'd be more inclined to think the earlier society was the original writer of the story. (the Mesopotamians)
One Wave - If Adam wrote the events of his life down, where is the writing of his life? And also, why does the Genesis account parallel two different myths at once? Besides all this, are you saying that certain scholars are more credible because they believe that the Genesis account came from Adam? Is there evidence that their claim is true? (Does this make any sense whatsoever anyway?)
This is the problem with presupposition: There may be many explanations for a set of facts, but if you take certain things as truth before examining them, then only the explanation that fits your presuppositions makes sense to you.
Since when was that the earlier society? I remember that athiests used to scoff at the Bible that it said of a group of people, the Hittites in Turkey, who never existed, until finally archeological evidence showed up.
Hi anonymous@810,
there are more example than that, but it still doesn't mean its true. Atlantis was mentioned in story in a historical setting and it wasn't true. Think "ancient epic". Think Homer and the odyssey.
Lee,
I don't believe that a person needs to read the Bible to know God or to prove that He exists, so circular reasoning is irrelevant to me.
My point about gravity is that like you said, it's a phenomena. We don't know what causes it, exactly. Scientists give it a name and we all believe they must know what they are talking about. For all we know there may be Martians in the middle of the earth, or lizard people (Art Bell anyone?), with really big magnets pulling us down. What do we really have to prove that there is such a thing as gravity beside the fact that we have weight and the scientists tell us it is because of gravity?
No, people should not base a worldview on a book. All people should think for themselves and listen to their conscience. One problem with conscience is that many children don't have the opportunity to fully develop a conscience due to harsh parents, neglect, abuse etc. It seems to me, I could be wrong seeing that Preacher has been an Atheist since he was 6, that most children who grow up with loving parents in a secure home have a belief in some sort of ultimate good which comes from some sort of good being. There would be no need for laws or the Bible or any other religious book if people sought God with all their heart...the God that they believe is good and loving and would lead them to be the same as He.
Preacher,
No, I don't think that certain scholars are more credible because they believe the Genesis account came from Adam. I think we would agree that the most credible scholars look at what is in front of them and draw conclusions based on facts and their understanding of the mindset of the cultures involved with thier study. In my opinion a credible scholar would also be one who is able to see thier job as a service and not a means to an end, whether Christian or other.
I think it makes perfect sense that Adam may have left records. If he was formed with the potential for unlimited intelligence, like we are now, why would it be preposterous that he could have found a way to record in clay for instance, like the Summerians, or on goatskin parchment like this Archimedes Palimpsest?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/23/MNGQ2CSVND1.DTL&type=science
If ink can dissappear over a period of less than 1000 years, how much more likely that there may be many lost writings under ground that has not yet been broken?
Or perhaps ancient people before the Summerians had other ways like this:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/americanancientwriting/a/quipu.htm
About which civilization came first....if there was an Adam, he would have come before the Hebrews. God didn't begin to make a nation of the Hebrews until He called Abraham out of Ur. Even then, it wasn't until Jacob was renamed by God that the name Israel was conceived and the Hebrew nation began.
Preacher: If Adam wrote the events of his life down, where is the writing of his life?
I don't know. I don't know if he did write, or tangibly communicate events. In the O.T. there are many references to records or books. Like Genesis 5:1. Going back to a credible scholar...I would have a lot of respect for a scholar who looked at that and considered the possibility that there could be more recorded information out there that has not yet been found. Until we dig up the whole surface of the earth, we can't say for sure that there aren't some surprises waiting to be found.
Preacher: And also, why does the Genesis account parallel two different myths at once?
I still stick to what I said before. If at one time there was one understanding of how the world came to be, wouldn't it make sense that as time went on and people separated their stories would be similar but varied?
If people stopped seeking to know the Creator and didn't bother to keep records, how would they know the true account of the world's beginning? I would have no problem with the Genesis account paralleling more than 2 myths because a myth is an attempt to express a truth that ressonates in a person's mind and heart but is not understood.
You don't see a problem with the presuppostion that life can evolve? If highly trained scientists cannot create life in a test tube knowing all of an organism's compontents, how much more unlikely is it that those same components could have come together randomly, and then somehow resisted oxidation and decompostition long enough to form one living cell. And then for that cell to reproduce, having just the right pairing of amino acids that would form a helix and become more complex to the point of being able to not just divide, but actually become two complimentary male and female organisms, independent of one another who were able to find each other, so to speak, and reproduce?
THAT is not presuppostion?
John,
I think I understand that you could possibly believe in God but not one like the Bible describes.
I think I understand why you have called the Christian God names, the character He is ascribed with in the Bible is against what you would be able to accept.
I'm wondering what your ideal God would do if the world He created went against the things He knew would be best. Would this God want to have people be His friend as well, or more of a benevolent dictator?
Hi One Wave,
I'm going to take the liberty of putting my two cents in on what you wrote to Preacher as well.
Lee,
. What do we really have to prove that there is such a thing as gravity beside the fact that we have weight and the scientists tell us it is because of gravity?
We have technology based on it. We have GPS and Satellite communication. The internet, Cable T.V., etc. That means we have a pragmatic understanding of it. We can make predictions about it. We can observe it at a very detailed level. We have an understanding of what causes it, under what conditions we can expect it and what we can expect from it in certain conditions. It looks like you are saying "we don't really know exactly what it is so it could just as likely be God" which is the only logical place I see this heading, then you are relying on your presupposition for the supernatural and giving up on looking for reasons in the only place you have a reason to look. Show me something supernatural and I'll start considering it as at least as plausible as a natural explanation.
No, people should not base a worldview on a book. All people should think for themselves and listen to their conscience.
We agree on that.
One problem with conscience is that many children don't have the opportunity to fully develop a conscience …most children who grow up with loving parents in a secure home have a belief in some sort of ultimate good which comes from some sort of good being.
How does this fit with the Bible? Are you saying that the bible or god will give them a conscience? Religion has been around for a very long time, and there has been significant social pressure to conform. This could explain most children in homes. This overbearing social pressure skews the stats doesn't' it? You seem to be assuming that children that grow up in a home like you describe have more conscience that those that don't. One of the things that I didn't like about the church was the hypocrisy and the silly phrase they used to justify it "Hypocrites belong in church". Unethical behavior is an equal opportunity vice. Think Jim and Tammy, Ted and Jimmy just to name those that got caught.
There would be no need for laws or the Bible or any other religious book if people sought God with all their heart...the God that they believe is good and loving and would lead them to be the same as He.
Are you saying that I did not seek god with all my heart? Is that the way it works that anyone that invests a lot of time and tears and ultimately 'doesn't get it' is automatically ASSUMED to have not done it well enough? How can a loving god let that happen? Did he make a game that was too hard for some? I would expect that 'the truth' of god would be irresistible and verifiable. If I'm wrong about that, then Predestination would explain it and anyone is just as likely as not to go to hell. Another way to explain it is if god was a big unreasonable meanie. Does that mean you passed the test and the rest of us failed it? How do you know that one day you won't discover that you really don't believe anymore? Then you would have to listen to people telling you that you didn't try hard enough and implying that you're going to hell.
I think it makes perfect sense that Adam may have left records. If he was formed with the potential for unlimited intelligence, like we are now, why would it be preposterous that he could have found a way to record in clay for instance, like the Summerians, or on goatskin parchment like this Archimedes Palimpsest?
If it was that easy, why didn't Jesus do it? I think it makes perfect sense that Jesus may have left records. If he was formed with the potential for unlimited intelligence, like we are now, why would it be preposterous that he could have found a way to record in clay for instance, like the Summerians, or on goatskin parchment like this Archimedes Palimpsest? That doesn't seem to have been the case.
If ink can dissappear over a period of less than 1000 years, how much more likely that there may be many lost writings under ground that has not yet been broken?
This is entirely possible. But the story is so similar to other myths and is not consistent with itself, that it doesn't seem plausible.
You don't see a problem with the presuppostion that life can evolve? If highly trained scientists cannot create life in a test tube knowing all of an organism's compontents, how much more unlikely is it that those same components could have come together randomly, and then somehow resisted oxidation and decompostition long enough to form one living cell….
THAT is not presuppostion?
Again we are back to plausibility and poor analogy. Scientists haven't tried every conceivable combination over millions of years. We understand how it works but don't know how it got started. There is a lot of inefficiency in this 'god given life'. I guess inefficiency is one of those little surprises. Since life looks so inefficient and looks like a bunch of starts and stops it is what we would expect if it happened by trial and error not from a divine creator. To some degree this is what the presupposition is based on. It is more plausible than a supernatural being that has no evidence to support it.
If you don't trust scientists to explain gravity, or the origins of life, how are you going to trust theologists to explain god or historians to explain Adam? It seems you are not basing your decision on a respect for the scientific method as much as what supports what you already believe. The scientific method is defeasible, that is its strength. It will take new information into account and modify explanations to account for it. The truths it discovers are independently verifiable and reproducible. Trust is not a big factor. If its true it works if its not it doesn't. Think Cold Fusion. Think Vaccinations. I know your position on Vaccinations, but the truth is, things like rabies, malaria, small pox, typhoid, cholera and polio are kept in check by vaccinations. People that don't do vaccinations put the rest of us at risk. The bible doesn't fit the observable facts and your hypothesis about Adam doesn't fly with experts in their field.
I'm wondering what your ideal God would do if the world He created went against the things He knew would be best.
We're talking anout an omni-benelovent God, correct?
Then I would at least like him to have the same kind of love for his creatures as a mother does for her children.
Do not respond that God does this. He doesn't. Yes, parents punish their childen, although with Parent Effectiveness Training, they do not need to spank or hit them. But the punishments are called "disipline," beause they are geared toward helping to teach their children how to behave. A good mother never punishes her children in any harsh manner at all because they deserve it. It's alwasy to teach. No mother sends a proverbial hurricane because her child "swears" or says "no" to his momma.
Can you tell me that your omnibenelovent God is more loving than a good mother? Really?
Even humane governments do not pluck out a criminals eyes, of maim him for life, or starve him to death, or burn him alive, or decapitate his head, and even when it comes to capital punishment we demand that it's not done cruelly.
Yes, God is more loving then a good mother. God, the creator of the universe, died for my wrongdoings. There is no greater love than laying down ones life for a friend. However Jesus died before I knew him, and he even died for those who rejected him.
How good is love to only love those who love you?
Okay, anon, now tell me why our sins are such dreadful things that someone had to die for my sins?
Besides, there is no coherent understanding of exactly why Jesus' death on the cross helps us.
Furthermore, if God is omniscient then he should understand what sin is from our perspective, or, if he knew in advance he just couldn't stomach our sins, he should never have created us knowing that he'd have to send an overwhelming majority to hell. Why do that when everything was already perfect for him such that he needed nothing, desired nothing, and had everything he wanted...everything...he lacked nothing. To say he just wanted to share his love isn't a satisfactory answer, since he would also know that to share that love he would also have to condemn a great majority of human beings in the process. To say he wanted free willed creatures who freely love him isn't a satisfactory answer either, for then arises the difficulty of whether or not there will be sin and free will in heaven. If there isn't free will in heaven then why bother creating us on earth? If there is, and god can guarantee people won't sin, then why didn't he do this in the forst place. If there is sin in heaven then why bother to die for us on earth?
John said:
Even humane governments do not pluck out a criminals eyes, of maim him for life, or starve him to death, or burn him alive, or decapitate his head, and even when it comes to capital punishment we demand that it's not done cruelly.
You're right. I absolutely agree with you.
My problem with this accross the board is that there are inhumane people. You have given many examples of what you think are horrible acts of God against people. Did He do anything to them that were not already doing to each other? What options did He have. He could have just wiped them out but how? Isn't that what He did when He told the Israelites to kill even the babies? Should He have had the earth swallow them up?
What do you propose?
Hi One Wave,
I'm going to butt in again….
My problem with this accross the board is that there are inhumane people. You have given many examples of what you think are horrible acts of God against people. Did He do anything to them that were not already doing to each other?
yes, in one case he turned one into a pillar of salt and in another he closed the waters on an army, in another he kept them lost in the wilderness eating only what he produced for them. Which makes me wonder why he doesn’t do this for starving children now. But does the fact that people do it to each other justify a God doing it to the comparatively worthless and weak?
What options did He have.
you sound as if he had no options. He is God right? That logically entails lots of options
He could have just wiped them out but how? Isn't that what He did when He told the Israelites to kill even the babies? Should He have had the earth swallow them up?
What do you propose?
I'm not sure I get it, are you defending the murder of babies and advocating mass killing here?
Hi Lee,
Butt in any time!
Lee: ..yes, in one case he turned one into a pillar of salt and in another he closed the waters on an army, in another he kept them lost in the wilderness eating only what he produced for them. Which makes me wonder why he doesn’t do this for starving children now. But does the fact that people do it to each other justify a God doing it to the comparatively worthless and weak?
Me: OK, I was referring to examples that John gave. You're right, a pillar of salt would be a hard one to duplicate as well as drowning an army or making food fall from the sky. Do you fault God for protecting the Israelites when they crossed the sea?
Can God use you to go feed the starving children?
The fact that people do horrific things to each other sets up a framework for what is appropriate in dealing with those people. Right now our country is in a situation where we may need to change the Geneva Convention code of conduct for the treatment of enemies during wartime because of the nature of those we are fighting. They do not put the same value on human life and think nothing of torturing mercilessly. Should we be gentle and kind and rebuke with words only? These people are willing to blow themselves up. (Please don't expect me to comment on whether the war we are involved in is right or wrong or whether we have any place to be there, this is just an example of a modern dilema.)
I'm not sure what God has done to the compartively weak. Who do you mean?
Lee: you sound as if he had no options. He is God right? That logically entails lots of options
Me: No, I'm asking you to give some options. I'm not implying God's hands were tied, I'm wondering what you all think He should do with evil people.
Lee: I'm not sure I get it, are you defending the murder of babies and advocating mass killing here?
Me: No, I am not defending the murder of babies. I may be wrong, but I understand that many cultures practiced infanticide because of vengance; children would grow up to avenge their ancestors. Of course to us it's unthinkable just like slavery.
So Lee, what would you propose God do with people who are evil?
Like these people:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0425_020426_mochekillings.html
I propose that the whole framework is flawed. But If I have to accept the premise for the question that I will momentarily. I propose that god should be irresistable, non-ambiguous and irrefutable. That would likely solve the evil problem.
oh I forgot the 'worthless and weak' explanation. Humans killing each other is one thing because we are all in one category, and in some case we treat each other as equals. But a an all-powerful, all-knowing god killing humans, is a little bit of a mis-match. We are told we are not worthy and fall short, we are sinners from birth etc...This sounds like a completely unfair situation.
But I think it can be explained if we consider the idea that god was way for the ancients to get a grip on the concept of chance.
I see, Lee. Thank you for taking the time to indulge my inquiring mind, I appreciate it.
John,
I raised the very same point in my discussion with Mysterium Tremendum yesterday when I asked him why a perfectly content deity should desire to do anything at all, especially when he knows in advance the horrible suffering this would set in motion. Mysterium responded with some nonsense about God's overflowing grace. Overflow to what? There's nothing outside of god for anything to overflow to. This overflowing of God's grace sounds suspiciously like a compulsion to me. God creates something to contain the overflow, regardless of the consequences. So it would seems millions have to suffer and die in order for the overflowing fountain of God's grace to find expression. Thanks a lot, Buddy!
Remember, God is supposedly completely self-contained, whooping it up with his Son and the holy spirit. He is and has all that he desires. He is in need of nothing. And yet, in the midst of this total bliss, this insane idea to create a race of fallible and vulnerable creatures emerges out of nowhere. And suddenly it's damn the consequences, full speed ahead. Now if that's not nuts, I don't know what is.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that entity dearest to his heart save for his own Son, his beloved Lucifer, would sin, rebel, and eventually wind up being tormented forever in hell, but he proceeds with this Grand Guignol anyway, with nothing compelling him to do so. Excuse me, except for the desire to let others drink from the overflowing fountain of his grace. As I said, sounds like compulsion to me.
I think when you get to the heart of why God created, you get to the real problem of Christianity. Good job guys.
As for my view from behind the veil... I would almost expect the world to look just like this. What I mean is that we see YHWH acting in ways that are both evil and good, destructive and constructive. He is a reflection of man that made him, and in my current opinion, that man is much like the nature in which he lives. Just as water gives like and erodes it, so does man and so do the gods.
And all of this still leaves us with Sartre's lament "why is there something rather than nothing"........as well as infinite regress. sigh
Anonymous,
"...why is there something rather than nothing?"
Hey, I've got a suggestion. since you folks are so fond of mystery, Why not call it a mystery and leave it at that, instead of making up horrific fairy tales? That would be a mystery I could live with.
Bronxboy,
Here's the way I see it. God is complete and self-sufficient in the trinity. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. They are complete and lack nothing. In fact they need nothing. The Spirit of Love that flows between them is the Holy Spirit. From this overflowing fountain flows all the grace in the universe. God created by the overflow of His grace. I say grace because you cannot deserve as a non-being to be created. God wasn't obligated to create neither is He obligated to sustain creation. He freely chose to create. There is common grace and there is saving grace. Common grace refers gracious activity in sustaining creation and restraining evil. This grace is common because it falls on all of creation including all creatures. Since grace is unmerrited favor(undeserved) then God is never obligated to give it. If He witholds it He does nothing wrong. The only way He could do something wrong by witholding grace is if grace were owed. But it's never owed. He alone is the Creator He alone is God.
If the very beginning of the Christian mythos make no sense, then the centuries of subsequent theological yarn spinning dressed up as doctrine becomes irrelevant.
It could be that we will never know the answer to this question. It could also be that some unfathomable force that is NOT Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, et al created the universe. I'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but just because there is something doesn't mean Jesus is the answer. And, who even said there was something? Where does that idea come from? Who says we have a substance?
Great post. I also agree with the BronxBoy47: "since you folks are so fond of mystery, Why not call it a mystery and leave it at that, instead of making up horrific fairy tales? That would be a mystery I could live with."
Mysterium,
You are simply--but accurately--regurgitating catechism platitudes. Your comments would bear more weight if they displayed any sign of independent thought--indeed, of any thought at all.
And speaking of thought, have you had a chance to peruse the article I recommended?
Mysterium Tremendum said,
God is complete and self-sufficient in the trinity. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. They are complete and lack nothing. In fact they need nothing.
What the hell does this mean? Really. As English language constructs these strings of words are nonsensical, not unlike Jabberwocky.
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves..."
It's no wonder the ideas of the various Christianities do not convince pious scholars of other religions to convert. Christianity's abuse of language makes a complete mockery of the idea of communication.
That last word string, "In fact they need nothing," shows how religion corrupts the mind with its inane mantras. The gods of the Christianities are no different from all those thousands of other gods - most having no active believers today - that mankind has dreamt up. Every god that has ever been believed in has been imaginary, including the thousand or so actively worshipped today. Thor, Loki, Jupiter, Zeus, Athena, Apollo, and Mythra serve as fine illustrations: gods don't exist; only believers in gods exist. Today's gods dwell only in the imaginations of today's believers in those gods.
When the believers are gone, that is, when the imaginations where the gods reside becomes oblivion, gone too are the gods in residence.
Today's information systems allow us to watch the process as it happens. Religions and their associated gods come and go. Novel Christianities with uniquely-defined gods come and go. We can watch as whole societies with their distinct culturally constructed deities are extinguished.
History tells a ghoulish tale of how some of today's long-suriving religions, like Christianity and Islam, have annihilated thousands of cultures while their piously-worshipped gods powerlessly went down with them. Belief, worship, and imaginary omnipotence count for nothing.
If religions really were good for people we'd see it plain as day. There would be no need for foggy nonsensical language to prop up for the gods of believer's imaginings, which along with the believer himself, ultimately go the way of the grave.
It was previously written: "What the hell does this mean? Really. As English language constructs these strings of words are nonsensical, not unlike Jabberwocky."
I believe this is consistent with what a certain scripture that says that the gospel will initially sound like nonsense. I know for some ppl anything that doesn't make sense to them is a trigger to attack rather than seek to understand.
Then "History tells a ghoulish tale of how some of today's long-suriving religions, like Christianity and Islam, have annihilated thousands of cultures while their piously-worshipped gods powerlessly went down with them."
Histrionics and sensationalism used to intimidate me but not anymore. Jesus already warned about religious-infected ppl who would use the name of God as a means to empower themselves and to justify mistreating others. So, no new news there -
HTG
MMM, you said,
I believe this is consistent with what a certain scripture that says that the gospel will initially sound like nonsense.
Unfortunately, what initially sounds like nonsense whether it's gospel or other, after much careful study under the guidance of clergy and theologians and after much praying and communing with the transcendent, still sounds like nonsense. How do we know this? Explanations from laymen, clergy, and theologians alike are incoherent, nonsensical, and often completely contradictory.
If the theologians - the real pros, mind you - are taking cues from some deity, that deity must be quite the comic in that it revels in telling different Christian theologians different things, thus, confusing and dividing people, not uniting them. Process theology and Biblical literalism are telling examples. They tell us that theologians are just making this stuff up. If the sophisticated theologians can't get a answers that agree with the others from their shared deity, there exists no reason whatsoever to think all those other far less sophisticated schmucks buttwarming the pews is having any better luck.
My family has many theologians and clergy - father, brothers, uncles, grandparents - and I have friends and acquaintances who are also. I've been studying Christianity for most of forty years. Not a particular Christianity, but many of the forty thousand or so distinct Christianities that exist today. Much of my life has been steeped in the Christianities, so I understand better than most - even better than most Christian clergymen - when I state that the smoke and mirrors of religious language is nonsense. Most clergy are denominational specialists who have no idea how varied are the ideas defining the other Christianities.
Gods are not real, MMM. Only believers in gods are real. Gods dwell in imaginations only.
You said,
I know for some ppl anything that doesn't make sense to them is a trigger to attack rather than seek to understand.
If you reread what I wrote in my previous comment, you will find that I was not attacking anything. If you are a typical believer from one of the typical Christianities, you know almost nothing about the Christianities as a whole. Not an attack, MMM, just an observation. Also, it is not an attack when after decades of study I observe that nonsense is nonsense regardless of the number of people who have agreed amongst themselves to say that nonsense is something else.
You're compelled to agree with me if you think that your brand of Christianity is sensible while other Christianties and other religions are not. You're compelled to agree with me if you think that from the forty thousand Christianities, you have chosen the correct one. You're compelled to agree with me if you think that of the more than 1000 gods actively worshipped throughout humanity today, yours is the real deal while all the others are not. You're compelled to agree with me if you think that your god is telling you the truth as it misleads everyone else.
Few Christians know much at all about Christianity as a whole, yet they freely and proudly assert their claim of truth. That is pure nonsense.
"What the hell does this mean? Really. As English language constructs these strings of words are nonsensical, not unlike Jabberwocky."
Russ,
What do you mean by this? How did you come to this conclusion?
It makes perfect sense to me.
Mysterium,
Might I suggest that he quite possibly came to this conclusion by applying his "God given" gift of reason, a faculty in serious disrepute among Christians who frequently give it a wide berth in favor of sophistry, ie, empty words and phrases concocted in seminaries and not infrequently gussied up in ecclesiastical Latin to impress the yokels.
Mysterium,
I'm going to be charitable and assume that somehow you failed to read Russ' reply to your question in the post just above yours. Now, having read it, do you feel you've been given a satisfactory answer? (Silly question)
Bronxboy,
I don't see any contradiction in what I said.
I said: "God is complete and self-sufficient in the trinity. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. They are complete and lack nothing. In fact they need nothing."
Nothing I said is incoherent. If you are refering to the trinity as being incoherent then I will just have to say that there is nothing incoherent at all there either. It is difficult and perplexing to us but not incoherent.
There is one God and three persons. That is, God is one in essence and three in person. Though the formula is mysterious it's not contradictory. It would be contradictory if I said:
One in essence and three in essence or one person and three persons. But this isn't the teaching.
Mysterium,
I don't see any mention of contradiction in any of my recent posts. What on earth are you talking about? Are we talking past each other across parallel universes? Of all the points raised recently by myself and others which you could have addressed, this is how you choose to respond, attacking a point I never raised? I have pointed out repeatedly that you choose to repeat stock catechism phrases and show no sign of being willing to engage in a thoughtful discussion of the difficult issues raised on this site, but I have no recollection of ever accusing you of contradicting yourself or of making contradictory statements--nonsensical perhaps, but not contradictory. What could you possibly contradict? You just keep repeating the same thing ad nauseam.
Mysterium,
A case in point: I asked you if your were satisfied with Russ' answer which was posted just above your question. The gentleman went out of his way to explain himself at great length, and you simply chose to ignore him and pontificate to me over a completely fabricated issue of contradiction.
Mysterium,
As a matter of fact, your replies are so consistently non-responsive that I'm beginning to suspect you of being deliberately mischievous and obstructionist. Are you just out to irritate the grownups?
Calvin, Cole, Mysterium, I see after all you've learned that you are reverting back to simplistic answers.
Shame, really.
Mysterium,
Ah, I see you have a history at this site. Boy, is my face red. You had me going there for a while, I'm man enough to admit it. What you are shall remain a mystery I have no interest in solving.
John,
I don't think the answer to this one is complicated. Why should it be? I made a simple statement and then was told it was absurd and then asked where the absurdity was.
I said: God is complete and self-sufficient in the trinity. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father with perfect love. They are complete and lack nothing. In fact they need nothing.
Russ said: "What the hell does this mean? Really. As English language constructs these strings of words are nonsensical, not unlike Jabberwocky."
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves..."
Surely its not. I don't see the absurdity here. Maybe you can help me out.
Mysterium
One doesn't decide to create while remaining perfectly indifferent about the final outcome. One expects eventually to be satisfied with one's creation. That expectation of satisfaction is called DESIRE. One desires a certain outcome and sets about to achieve that outcome. There is no room for desire in a God who is self-contained, complete, and who neither lacks nor needs anything. There can be no "overflow" from such a God. That very "overflow" would be an indication of incompleteness. Something that is perfectly self-contained does not "overflow".
Now, Mysterium, can you respond to what I have just written, without resorting to simply repeating catechism platitudes which do not explain but simply assert that which is patently absurd. Something which is patently absurd doesn't become any less absurd by calling it a mystery. If you cannot respond directly to the issue I've just raised with some intelligent thoughts, I'm through with you.
Bronxboy,
I disagree with you. I think God's grace can overflow. Why should I think otherwise? It spills over and fills the universe. In creation God "went public" with the glory that reverberates joyfully between the Father and the Son. There is something about the fullness of God's joy that inclines it to overflow. There is an expansive quality to His joy. It shares itself. The inpulse to create the world was not from weekness as though God were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. The eternal grace of the Triune God spilled over in the work of creation.
Mysterium
You do violence to both language and logic when you casually use wordslike "spills", "inclines",
"overflows, and most importantly "impulse" while remaining blind to the implication of compulsion residing in those words. Prior to the creation of the universe there would be no place for God's joy to "overflow" to. What you are implying is that God had no choice but to create a universe to contain his "overflow".
Bronxboy,
God's grace flows freely, not under compulsion. God is never obligated to give grace since it is unmerited favor. There is an eternal supply of grace in eternity. I think bygone grace is the foundation for future grace. I obey the teachings of Christ by faith in future grace. The evidence of past grace certifies the surety of future grace. For me Past grace is building up every day. The infinite supply of future grace flows back through the present into the growing buildup of past grace.
I look back in order to believe in future grace. I cherish past grace for the sake of joyful hope. The reason I look back at past grace is to increase my confidence in the future things He is planning for me. Remembering the former things God has done for me gives me a solid foundation for believing Him when He says in Isaiah 46:10 "I will accomplish all my good pleasure."
I believe that every sinner who comes to God in Christ, whith all his needs, finds God comming to him in Christ, with all His promises. Christ is the foundation for all future grace. When I look back to strengthen my faith in future grace, I look primarily to Jesus.
Mysterium,
I'll ask it one more time: how can anything "overflow" if there is no place for it to "overflow" to? You create a picture of a God so filled with joy and love that he'll explode if he doesn't create some place to contain his overflow. Again I ask, how can anything flow if there is no place for it to flow to? Once you admit that in the absence of creation, God cannot overflow or "spill", as according to you, his nature dictates--then you are admitting to a compulsion.
Mysterium,
"There is an ËXPANSIVE quality to his joy...
How can you stare the word "expansive" in the face and not see the point I'm trying to make? Prior to creation there was no place to expand to. Therefore, if expansiveness is an essential part of God's loving nature, then the act of creation this expansiveness necessitates must be seen as a compulsion.
I'll use a typical response and say that MT wasn't a true non-believer. (I'm being sarcastic.)
I remember when he use to make some angry post about God's moral character. And since he seemed to be recently de-converted when I first came to this site, I could tell from a psychological point of view that he wasn't sure of his decision. So I'm not really surprised you went back MT, especially with the arguments your using right now. I mean it's very obvious you are trying very hard to convince/tell yourself the god you perceive is real, perfect, loves you, wants you to love him, never gives up on you (until judgment day), and is justified even if he tells you to kill yourself. Surely you would still say he has moral reasons that you just don't know.
Anyways, the angry tone you had when speaking against God is now gentle meek and mild towards him, and I see it's translating over in your responses to us non-believers. But I do hope you realize that this is just a state of mind that you can change at anytime. It's not Jesus.
Thanks for the heads up, Andre. I'm done.
Hey Andre,
Thanks for noticing the change. It's been a long ride. I went from crazy calvinist to atheism and now I'm not sure what I am. I do hold to some Reformed teachings but not all. I would probably be considered to be a heretic by some people because I still haven't made my mind up on the atonement, hell, and other issues.
Bronxboy,
I think maybe grace flows throughout all eterinty and not just the universe. I realize I'm stuck with the problem of when God decided to create but this is simply me trying to comprehend the infinite. I can't fully comprehend the infinite. I'm limited and finite. I think we're left with mystery. Unless I'm mistaken.
"If the sophisticated theologians can't get a answers that agree with the others from their shared deity, there exists no reason whatsoever to think all those other far less sophisticated schmucks buttwarming the pews is having any better luck."
Thanks for the response - actually, sophistication is not the goal of faith - Jesus came to rescue lost children, not hide them beneath a facade of arrogance. But thanks for the conversation - the best of luck to you with your approach to life!
3M
3m,
True, sosphitication is certainly not the goal, but a certain sophistication was certainly required to to concoct the doctrinal sophistries of the early church, which were subsequently handed down to the schismatic Protestants for further amendments and deletions. These are not the doctrines of childlike minds, but they have certainly been spoon fed to children for centuries.
3m,
Jesus could have done his children a big favor by educating them a little on the existence of dangerous germs and microbes built into the fabric of their loving father's creation, along with some fact's about naturally occurring disasters like tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes, thus saving them the trouble of ferreting out witches and the demon-possessed to lay the blame on. Childlike credulity ceases to be cute past a certain point. Historically it has been shown to have deadly consequences.
MT: If I could borrow from MMM, "I wish you the best."
No problem Bronxboy47.
If Jesus had done anything like tell people about dangerous germs or the cure for diseases, then people would know that he was God. But because he wasn't God, he wouldn't have known about these things.
See, one of my issues with Jesus is, just like the writers of the Bible, especially the new testament, his main concern was trying to get people to believe in him. He didn't really care so much for educating you so you can help yourself. It is no wonder he supposedly made us in this mess we're in, just so he can play the hero. And since I do not believe in him, what kind of a hero would he be if this is the reason he wouldn't save me?
It was written - "See, one of my issues with Jesus is, just like the writers of the Bible, especially the new testament, his main concern was trying to get people to believe in him. He didn't really care so much for educating you so you can help yourself. It is no wonder he supposedly made us in this mess we're in, just so he can play the hero. And since I do not believe in him, what kind of a hero would he be if this is the reason he wouldn't save me?"
Your perspective of God is infected with ego - Jesus did not "collect" followers - He chose people to serve as long as they were willing to learn to be trusted not to abuse their empowerment.
All too often, we project cruelty onto the personality of God when in fact, He seeks to intervene on such. Our perspective and response to God reveals what is in our own hearts and minds- those who are indoctrinated and harbor contempt for human vulnerability reject a God who became vulnerable, even abused, in order to demonstrate the love He has for humanity.
Ciao for now!
Post a Comment