God and War

[Joe Wordsworth]

Not to downplay or ignore the atrocity in the world, but I believe in #5 because I cannot deny the genuinely good things, people, and movements that have come to pass. If I am to believe in God, I find these to be powerful examples of divine hope and direction toward a better world in the midst of a world that doesn't seem to be so naturally.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There are more than just the two options (as a democratic response):

1) God doesn't exist.
2) God exists and isn't aware of the situation.
3) God exists, is aware of the situation and cannot do anything about it.
4) God exists, is aware of the situation and doesn't want to do anything about it.
5) God exists, is aware of the situation and is doing something about it.
6) God exists, is aware of the situation and is propogating it ("for" it).

I think there might be others, but there you go.

Personally, I believe #5.

7) God exists, but doesn't give a fuck about humanity. We were an accident of creation.
8) God exists, can fix the problem, but wants to see if we can do it on our own.
9) Gods exist, and sometimes they bicker.
10) The cheese is talking to me and is telling me to kill again.


Just a few others.

Personally if I was a Christian, I'd probably think either 7 or 8 depending on my mood that day. Both are different than the impotent God image of 3.

 

[English Lady]

Not to downplay or ignore the atrocity in the world, but I believe in #5 because I cannot deny the genuinely good things, people, and movements that have come to pass. If I am to believe in God, I find these to be powerful examples of divine hope and direction toward a better world in the midst of a world that doesn't seem to be so naturally.

I love this quote Joe. You've hit the nail on the head for me.


although LC's number 10 is an option....... *chuckles*

Ok i'll duck out of the serious thread now so you can get on with the debating*L*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Lucifer_Carroll
7) God exists, but doesn't give a fuck about humanity. We were an accident of creation.
8) God exists, can fix the problem, but wants to see if we can do it on our own.
9) Gods exist, and sometimes they bicker.
10) The cheese is talking to me and is telling me to kill again.


Just a few others.

Personally if I was a Christian, I'd probably think either 7 or 8 depending on my mood that day. Both are different than the impotent God image of 3.

7, 8, seems to be, essentially, the same as 4--a God who does not have the desire to affect. 9 is a bit outside the bounds of my response--an entirely different list ought be drawn up for the consideration of multiple gods (not the original speaker's object of possibilities and why I didn't include that).

If we're to qualify each one with "why", the list becomes extremely long and yet categorically the same (the huge wealth of reasons why God could not want to do anything hardly begins or ends with us being an accident or Him wanting us to do it on our own... we could include "He wants to see the outcome", "He is comfortable with the level of destruction", "He finds it good", etc., etc. ,etc.)

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

7, 8, seems to be, essentially, the same as 4--a God who does not have the desire to affect. 9 is a bit outside the bounds of my response--an entirely different list ought be drawn up for the consideration of multiple gods (not the original speaker's object of possibilities and why I didn't include that).

If we're to qualify each one with "why", the list becomes extremely long and yet categorically the same (the huge wealth of reasons why God could not want to do anything hardly begins or ends with us being an accident or Him wanting us to do it on our own... we could include "He wants to see the outcome", "He is comfortable with the level of destruction", "He finds it good", etc., etc. ,etc.)

I saw them as slightly different, but on the macro "I'm teaching a class" level, you're probably right. In truth, I was probably mostly putting it all in to lighten the spirit of the thread and deposit a small two cents.

The debates on God's manifestation of will has been going on for awhile. What a deity wants or doesn't want us to do, whether they give a fuck, whether they intervene, or whether they're just there to judge your soul in the aftermath.

Essentially it all ranges (in the types that include God) from The Great Bowler, who just set off the Big Bang and is waiting to see what entropy cooks up to The Micromanager, who is constantly intervening in everyone's lives, sending guardian angels, helping people win wars, rescuing cat's out of trees and generally playing a giant chess game on Earth against himself or against Satan.

And now for something completely random:

11) God exists, and is wearing a skimpy bathing suit for world peace. (admit it, you always knew there was something odd about that contest)

and an interesting another:

12) God is Satan, and is wearing a skimpy... okay, maybe not.

 

[snooper]

... Today I got a letter from my own GP ...

Look, my friend. ANYONE who gets a letter from (her)his GP should believe in God. After all, (s)he has personal experience of a miracle.

 

[Guest]

Look, my friend. ANYONE who gets a letter from (her)his GP should believe in God. After all, (s)he has personal experience of a miracle.

Amen to that.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: God and War

Same reason I root for my son at his little league game, but I'm not going to hit the ball for him.

Oh honey, I know you've got a big ego, but you are not God.

I knw you are going for the 'heavenly father' alegory but not all religions thing about god that way. Also, I think there is a big differnce between a) a human father and a supernatural one and b) playing a ball game and killing people.

Your answer, as stated, does not work for me.

 

[sweetnpetite]

There are more than just the two options (as a democratic response):

1) God doesn't exist.
2) God exists and isn't aware of the situation.
3) God exists, is aware of the situation and cannot do anything about it.
4) God exists, is aware of the situation and doesn't want to do anything about it.
5) God exists, is aware of the situation and is doing something about it.
6) God exists, is aware of the situation and is propogating it ("for" it).

I think there might be others, but there you go.

Personally, I believe #5.

7) God is a sadistic bastard. o you can't say that! you'll get struck by lightning- wait, does that prove or disprove the point?)

8) God is schizo. Or a drunk. (God and the Devil are the same)

9) It's not God who's talking to you.

10) There's more than one god.

I'm leaing on 7 and 10.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Actually, God, at least the Christian god, isn't omnipotent in war. In fact he was unable to deliver one race into the hands of the isrealites because they had iron charriot wheels. God is apparently not any good against Metal

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Actually, God, at least the Christian god, isn't omnipotent in war. In fact he was unable to deliver one race into the hands of the isrealites because they had iron charriot wheels. God is apparently not any good against Metal

-Colly

Hmm, suddenly Sammy Hagar and Ozzy Osbourne's evil plot is revealed. Crafty buggers.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hmm, suddenly Sammy Hagar and Ozzy Osbourne's evil plot is revealed. Crafty buggers.

How else could you explain Keith richards?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: God and War

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Oh honey, I know you've got a big ego, but you are not God.

I knw you are going for the 'heavenly father' alegory but not all religions thing about god that way. Also, I think there is a big differnce between a) a human father and a supernatural one and b) playing a ball game and killing people.

Your answer, as stated, does not work for me.

The question was "how can X happen?"

The answer was "this is how, the analogy goes like this to show correlation between subjects."

It wasn't my concern for it to work for anyone, only show the relation between the concept of "God" and "man" with regards to "God supporting man, but not taking actions on behalf of man". In this respect I find my analogy to be perfectly acceptible.

I was hardly elevating myself to the level of "God" and if you believe that, I advise that you carefully reconsider the post. That not all religions think a particular way is fine, but it has no bearing on "what is possible", which was the bounds of the original question and my original answer to it.

Much of the point is, is that there may NOT be a big difference on a truly divine scale between playing ball and stopping war. Truly, there may not be. If we want to use a more violent analogy, take a kid getting into a playground fight and his dad letting him sort it out himself--not out of perverse satisfaction, but out of allowing the kid to learn what he's got to learn and do what he's got to do. The components are not essential to my point, the point being entirely legit regardless.

If not, I'd be delighted to hear why.

 

[sweetnpetite]

7, 8, seems to be, essentially, the same as 4--a God who does not have the desire to affect. 9 is a bit outside the bounds of my response--an entirely different list ought be drawn up for the consideration of multiple gods (not the original speaker's object of possibilities and why I didn't include that).

If we're to qualify each one with "why", the list becomes extremely long and yet categorically the same (the huge wealth of reasons why God could not want to do anything hardly begins or ends with us being an accident or Him wanting us to do it on our own... we could include "He wants to see the outcome", "He is comfortable with the level of destruction", "He finds it good", etc., etc. ,etc.)

We are God's tv. He created us for his amusment, now he's watching to see how it all plays out. (just a thought.)

still, why does he whisper in his ear, you are my favorite, go and do this. and then whisper in anothers ear, youo are my favorite, go and take what belongs to these people over here.

I do believe that god talks to us, and that I suppose is why I feel that he must enjoy piting us against one another. Otherwise (asuming that he really speaks to humans) we would all recieve the same message, would we not?

Let's say that you believe that god is good, and that he chose the Hebrews and told them to kill this civilization and that one. What does that say about his treatment of his other creations? If one of my children where bad or 'wicked' I certainly wouldn't send my other child to kill them, to take there stuff, to move into there home Even if you believe the bible wich says 'god is good' how does than hold up against what else that same book sais about god?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Hmm, suddenly Sammy Hagar and Ozzy Osbourne's evil plot is revealed. Crafty buggers.

LOL!

Took me a minute, and then I got a good laugh.

 

[Liar]

34) God exits.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Let's say that you believe that god is good, and that he chose the Hebrews and told them to kill this civilization and that one. What does that say about his treatment of his other creations? If one of my children where bad or 'wicked' I certainly wouldn't send my other child to kill them, to take there stuff, to move into there home Even if you believe the bible wich says 'god is good' how does than hold up against what else that same book sais about god?

Well, to be fair, we're talking about some pretty hard-to-nail down things. Not the least of which being "does goodness demand that all human life be allowed to live" or "is human life, individually, a divine concern"?

 

[hogjack]

God is not only on my side but has agreed our military uniforms will be contemporary and attractive.

Where are some opponents to smote!

 

[cantdog]

He had a pretty poor opinion of nonbelievers and polytheists back in the day, as if he had to establish himself.

It's an unsettling set of stories to read, for a modern, well after the reforms of Jesus. It's like reading about some other God. The frame of reference of the beholder, in this case the ancients who were writing the stories, colors the perception of him strongly. What they were describing had to make sense in their terms.

 

[thebullet]

Joe said:

Well, to be fair, we're talking about some pretty hard-to-nail down things. Not the least of which being "does goodness demand that all human life be allowed to live" or "is human life, individually, a divine concern"?

Now you're talking, Joe. Are you saying that God isn't really the god of humans, but some gigantic universal presence that doesn't give a shit about us in the grand scheme of things?

If there is a god, you've hit the nail n the head. I like it. Fuck God.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
Joe said:

Now you're talking, Joe. Are you saying that God isn't really the god of humans, but some gigantic universal presence that doesn't give a shit about us in the grand scheme of things?

If there is a god, you've hit the nail n the head. I like it. Fuck God.

I'm saying that if we're to discuss theological questions intelligently, we have to establish what those bounds are if we expect to come to conclusions that are responsible.

"How can God allow war?" is just a restatement of the philosophical problem of evil--"Why are there bad things, if God is all good?"

God may, for instance, "give a shit about us" in a whole sense rather than an individual one. Or given that there is an afterlife that is better than this one, death isn't really a bad thing at all--so why prevent it? Or maybe God really is working to prevent these things and we're working to keep them.

If there is a God, there are several possibilities.

I think, at least personally, notions like "Fuck God" are rude.

 

[Edward Teach]

Maybe God is the sadistic, sick, retarded child of some super beings and we are a living toy he created. A toy his parents couldn't care less about since we are such simple creatures, kinda like his little ant farm. We keep him occupied and prevent him from causing any real trouble, like putting the cat into the microwave or blowing up the neighbor's fillerstartz, so his parents don't interfere no matter what he does with or to us.

Eddie The Philosopher

 

[thebullet]

Sorry if you think that I am rude, Joe, but I have a very cynical view of religion. Man's need for answers to the unknowable has led to the invention of all kinds of supreme beings, most of whom were selfish, childish bores who you wouldn't want to invite over for tea.

Any reasonable person reading the Old Testament for the first time would be appalled at the mean-spirited self-indulgent god that those pre-Christian era Jews wrought. And yet many so-called 'Christians' in America look to the Old Testament god as the kind of god they want; none of that mamby-pampy 'do unto others as you would have done to you' crap for them. They would rather smite the heathens first and forcibly convert whoever was left standing.

Of course, many fundamentalist Muslims feel the same way.

You are going to say that these people have nothing to do with god. But I say that man created god in his own image. And it's an ugly image.

I prefer a universe that follows its own rules and leaves gods to the little intelligences that occupy its various inhabited planets.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: God and War

It wasn't my concern for it to work for anyone, only show the relation between the concept of "God" and "man" with regards to "God supporting man, but not taking actions on behalf of man". In this respect I find my analogy to be perfectly acceptible.

I was hardly elevating myself to the level of "God" and if you believe that, I advise that you carefully reconsider the post.

Now that you put it that way, I understand the analagy. It was not clear to me without the explanation.

Sorry about the God comment, it was meant to be along the lines of gentle chiding, but things like that don't want to translate into print. Besides, I am probably far more irreverant than you and what I find acceptable to kid about you might not. I had not given much consideration to that either.

Simple misunderstanding- All's well that ends well?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, to be fair, we're talking about some pretty hard-to-nail down things. Not the least of which being "does goodness demand that all human life be allowed to live" or "is human life, individually, a divine concern"?

Would you consider it good if a mother has two children and decides that only one deserves her consideration and so kills the other? Further more, she has *chosen* to give birth to each of them. She 'made' them both on purpose. But she didn't like the way the one turned out.

Sure, she seems 'merciful' to the living child for sparing his/her life, but does that really make her merciful in the true sence of the word?

Shes been 'good' to one clild- but is she *good* To say she *is* good, is completly self centered and one sided- not truth.