Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

On 5/26/2022 at 9:10 PM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

This whole God giving man free will shit has to end. Look at the shape of the world and what man has done for thousands of years and continues to do.

What God would allow some killer to murder 19 children while they are attending school and their 2 brave women teachers?  It just makes no sense at all.

23:59 "God gave us free will" 

00:00 - "It is God's will"

Christians have to decide if God can and will change reality to answer their prayers and wishes, which mean God prefers to answer the prayers of north american and european children rather the prayers of children from developing countries, no matter what those prayers ask for, OR if God respects "free will" above all, which means he does not keep children from dying from preventable disease, people from being victims of sex trafficking, torture, rape and murder from happening, and his own creations from being destroyed by the actions of his his "favourite" creation. It just can't be both. If it is both, it means God can, but will not help children from being raped every day. If there's a divine plan and he's just sticking to it, it means prayers are useless and sex trafficking is part of this divine plan. If this is te case, he's not "all loving". If God just cannot help and keep this from happening, it means he is not "All powerful". If he is not aware this is happening, but would help if he were, he is not "All knowing". The whole concept of God being omnipotent, while the world is completely fucked up is a paradox. I mean...if you really stop to think about the bible for 5 minutes, it all kinda falls apart. It was written by human beings from more than a millennia ago so yeah, it contains the cognitive limitations and overall ignorance of the people from that time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gnosticism has the following explanation of evil and suffering in the world. In short, the "false, evil" god of the old testament is to blame for this. The "true", hidden, god, is not responsible for the creation of the physical world; it is only our souls which have any relation to the real god, which will go back to god after we die and after we have known the meaning of good and evil:

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation’s imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the “unusual” or “blasphemous” nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations. To appreciate it fully, however, a familiarity with the Gnostic conception of the Godhead is required, both in its original essence as the True God and in its debased manifestation as the false or creator God.

The Gnostic God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism.

In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.

The basic Gnostic myth has many variations, but all of these refer to Aeons, intermediate deific beings who exist between the ultimate, True God and ourselves. They, together with the True God, comprise the realm of Fullness (Pleroma) wherein the potency of divinity operates fully. The Fullness stands in contrast to our existential state, which in comparison may be called emptiness.

One of the aeonial beings who bears the name Sophia (“Wisdom”) is of great importance to the Gnostic world view. In the course of her journeyings, Sophia came to emanate from her own being a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw. This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God. Since he took the already existing divine essence and fashioned it into various forms, he is also called the Demiurgos or “half-maker” There is an authentic half, a true deific component within creation, but it is not recognized by the half-maker and by his cosmic minions, the Archons or “rulers”.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious folks tend to try to answer the problem of evil/suffering, by saying that it is collateral from god giving us free will. With free will, their argument goes, we are necessarily able to do hurtful things and the suffering comes from us making that decision. The only way to cease suffering is to remove free will, but the gift of free will is worth it.

That doesn't make sense. We only have "free will" to an extent. Our decisions on what to do are restricted by numerous things, from physical limitations to preferences and desires and drives. For instance, a good god could have removed the desire to have sex in children from pedophiles. A good god could have removed our propensity for violence. Etc, etc. We would still have the ability to do different things, just not a desire for it. The fact that I don't get aroused by children doesn't mean my free will is curbed, just that I don't have a desire for it.

If the argument is that a good couldn't have removed being sexually attracted to children from pedohiles without this meaning we don't have "free will" anymore, then my question is, does the fact that I don't want to molest kids mean that I have less "free will"? Or what about the fact that I don't want to jump off a cliff or cram crisps in my ears? Does this too mean I don't have "free will"?

I honestly can't believe how theists get away with such a silly attempt at aligning their idea with a "good god" with the fact that our world can by anything but good for many, many people. Furthermore, not all suffering is caused by the actions of other people. A good god could easily have removed many terrible diseases that affect people, including kids, as well as natural catastrophes. But no, apparently if there is a god, he wants us to suffer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Religious folks tend to try to answer the problem of evil/suffering, by saying that it is collateral from god giving us free will. With free will, their argument goes, we are necessarily able to do hurtful things and the suffering comes from us making that decision. The only way to cease suffering is to remove free will, but the gift of free will is worth it.

That doesn't make sense. We only have "free will" to an extent. Our decisions on what to do are restricted by numerous things, from physical limitations to preferences and desires and drives. For instance, a good god could have removed the desire to have sex in children from pedophiles. A good god could have removed our propensity for violence. Etc, etc. We would still have the ability to do different things, just not a desire for it. The fact that I don't get aroused by children doesn't mean my free will is curbed, just that I don't have a desire for it.

If the argument is that a good couldn't have removed being sexually attracted to children from pedohiles without this meaning we don't have "free will" anymore, then my question is, does the fact that I don't want to molest kids mean that I have less "free will"? Or what about the fact that I don't want to jump off a cliff or cram crisps in my ears? Does this too mean I don't have "free will"?

I honestly can't believe how theists get away with such a silly attempt at aligning their idea with a "good god" with the fact that our world can by anything but good for many, many people. Furthermore, not all suffering is caused by the actions of other people. A good god could easily have removed many terrible diseases that affect people, including kids, as well as natural catastrophes. But no, apparently if there is a god, he wants us to suffer.

the creator and god do not necessarily have to be one in the same.

that your first logical fallacy

some evil is done by the actions of humans, but many forms of evil are not. disease, natural disasters, etc. So evil, has nothing to do with free or not free will. that's your second logical fallacy.

sexual preferences, pedophily, is an aspect of the material realm. it is the result of biological processes in the brain. It is not a decision of the soul.

all the bad things you listed (pedophilia, violence), are part of the biological processes of our body, or in other words: the material part of what makes us a human.

When we die, all the material parts go away. the body decays, and with it all the bad intentions and passions. What remains, is the divine soul, that divine spark that is not part of the material realm, and thus transcends to the godly realm after we die.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the notion that the universe, with it's delicate balance of natural forces and parameters, is the result of random processes as opposed to a deliberate creative act, is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics as formulated by planck:

"The internal energy of a closed system is increased by an adiabatic process, throughout the duration of which, the volume of the system remains constant"

therefore, it is unthinkable, that a creative force was not involved in the creation of the universe.

This creative force does not have to be "god", there is no reason to make that deduction. That's the usual logical fallacy that sceptics make in order to disapprove god.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2022 at 10:26 AM, SoulMonster said:

Religious folks tend to try to answer the problem of evil/suffering, by saying that it is collateral from god giving us free will. With free will, their argument goes, we are necessarily able to do hurtful things and the suffering comes from us making that decision. The only way to cease suffering is to remove free will, but the gift of free will is worth it.

That doesn't make sense. We only have "free will" to an extent. Our decisions on what to do are restricted by numerous things, from physical limitations to preferences and desires and drives. For instance, a good god could have removed the desire to have sex in children from pedophiles. A good god could have removed our propensity for violence. Etc, etc. We would still have the ability to do different things, just not a desire for it. The fact that I don't get aroused by children doesn't mean my free will is curbed, just that I don't have a desire for it.

If the argument is that a good couldn't have removed being sexually attracted to children from pedohiles without this meaning we don't have "free will" anymore, then my question is, does the fact that I don't want to molest kids mean that I have less "free will"? Or what about the fact that I don't want to jump off a cliff or cram crisps in my ears? Does this too mean I don't have "free will"?

I honestly can't believe how theists get away with such a silly attempt at aligning their idea with a "good god" with the fact that our world can by anything but good for many, many people. Furthermore, not all suffering is caused by the actions of other people. A good god could easily have removed many terrible diseases that affect people, including kids, as well as natural catastrophes. But no, apparently if there is a god, he wants us to suffer.

You raise valid points and ask the very same questions the majority of theists have asked at some point or another.

 

"Free Will" in almost every religion throughout history is essentially the reason we exist as we are.   In the Abrahamic Religions, when God first created mankind, mankind did not have "free will" so to speak.  Mankind was "innocent" in the sense that they did not understand or know the meaning of "good" and "evil".  Life to mankind (or Adam and Eve) was essentially a "paradise" on Earth.  They lived simply and under the guidance of God.  They followed his path and ways. 

So yes, in the beginning, it was indeed like you say.  Mankind did not have "desires" to do harmful things to each other.  They lived simple lives without prejudices, malice, discontent, etc.  "Good and Evil" did not exist to mankind as a concept until mankind decided to stray from God's ways. (Garden of Eden, tempted by an adversary, the fall).

Other religions speak of primitive forces/spirits such as Taoism (Ying & Yang).  Hinduism, Buddhism speak of balance and "Karma".  These concepts exist because mankind has "Free Will" but is likely "influenced" by these forces.

On a much simpler note, think about when you were a child.  When you were about to do something you shouldn't do, do you remember getting anxious?  Did you pause (at least mentally) before doing it?  Did you feel "guilty" after doing it?  Even now, as an adult, why do you refrain from doing certain things that would be considered "immoral" or "wrong"?   Sure, most of it is likely do to the way you were raised, society's standards, etc.  But is it all because of that or do you have an "inner Spirit/Consciousness, etc" that guides you in some instances?  

 

Sigmund Freud developed the psychological concepts/theories of the "Super Ego" "Ego" and "Id".  To put it simply: The Super Ego is your "good/moral" internal psychological "force".    The "Id" is your "instinctual" desires.  The Ego is essentially who you are and what comes forth from you, the decisions you make, etc after you mediate between the Super Ego and the Id.  

When you ask the question, 'Why do people have desires to do harmful things to each other"?  You are essentially asking, "Why do people have an "Id"?  Well, without the "Id" mankind (as we understand it) could not have survived, procreated, evolved, etc on this planet (as we know it). The Id is the animalistic "survival" instinct in mankind.  It drives mankind to eat, to procreate, to defend themselves, to work, etc.  It also drives the "lesser" qualities of mankind such as greed, violence, etc.   It is countered by the "Super Ego" which drives the "moral" standards of mankind, etc.  Even in science/psychology these two opposite "forces" exist.

Most religions speak of the same thing but in a spiritual sense.  In the Abrahamic religions, mankind did not need an "Id" or a "Super Ego" when mankind was first created because they lived under the guidance of God.  There was no need for a "survival instinct" or an "moral force".  God created mankind with his spirit and mankind lived accordingly until mankind was tempted to stray from God's ways.  Once mankind strayed, they developed the concepts of "Good" and "Evil".    (Garden of Eden, eating from the Tree of Knowledge).  God then explained to mankind that once mankind "Fell" that they would now be forced to live a life of labor, survival, pain, etc.  Prior to mankind "falling" these concepts/issues did not exist to mankind.  And from that point forward, mankind had "free will".  

For most spiritual people, "Free Will" is the choice between following God's ways or straying from God's ways.  To answer one of your questions, if one truly follows God's ways, one will not cause harm to another.  Even if/when tempted, a truly spiritual person should choose not to cause harm to another.  When someone harms another person it is because he/she strayed from God's ways and instead decided to follow their desires/temptation.

From a psychological perspective, when someone lives a moral life he/she has developed an Ego with a very strong Super Ego as a guiding force.   Many spiritual people refer to it as "living in the Spirit".

Almost every civilization dating back from the dawn of mankind speaks of these two "forces".  Science refers to it as "inner conscience" and in psychology, Freud developed his theory accordingly.  Ancient religions, Greek philosophy, etc all refer to essentially the same thing.  The only difference is that Spiritual people call the "Good Force" God and the "Bad Force" their adversary.  

So why would an "Omnipresent/Omnipotent" God allow this "opposite force" to exist?  It's the hardest concept to grasp yet can be the simplest at the same time. 

Could this "opposite force" be required for the creation of the universe?  The same way humans need an "id" to survive? 

From a scientific perspective, if you look at the Big Bang Theory, how violent were the primitive days of the universe?  Eventually, that "violent" universe developed into incredibly majestic galaxies, stars and planets.  Our solar system is in perfect order to sustain life.  (One in a million chance or more).   

From a scientific perspective (and philosophically); from violence/chaos came order and because of that order, life as we understand it, was created.  

So is it that far fetched (or out of line) that spiritual people call the "order" or the force that created the order, God?  And potentially the opposite force of chaos, disorder, etc their adversary? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...