Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(106,283 posts)
83. "God created man in his own image", and as you said, that's about sentience
Sat Dec 10, 2016, 06:38 PM
Dec 2016

That's in the foundational text for 2 out of 3 of the Abrahamic religions (and I suspect there's something similar in Islam).

If you think that thorns are comparable with, say, 1 million deaths per year from malaria, and hundreds of millions suffering from that one disease, for millennia, let alone all the others, then there won't be much point in continuing the conversation. If a Creator were following his Golden Rule, he'd have looked at those deaths and how to prevent them. If he's completely alien to human ideas of empathy - fine. That's what would make him 'evil'. A Creator of this universe cannot be said to be benevolent.

Coincidentally, I read this today:

Children were crying as horrible diseases stripped them of any hope of joy.
Vibrant active young adults became crippled and died by every manner of injury and disease.
Mental illness played a changeling game with entire personalities, leaving behind strangers who couldn’t cope.
Cancerous evil that was devouring individuals, families and communities seemed to be everywhere.
...
I understood he was just parroting what he had been taught. This was, after all, the worldview of my church and the majority of evangelicalism. Placing evil in the context of God’s will was a coping mechanism that shut out the human voices of pain and reduced responsibility. But what sickened me was that everyone I knew agreed with this twisted view of God and human suffering. So I decided right then and there that this had to stop. I would find a resolution to The Problem of Evil that would answer my own nagging doubts and quiet the human voices that had kept me awake for so long, even if it killed me. And it nearly did — “Till human voices wake us and we drown.” T.S. Elliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.

That day was followed by many years of reading books, journals, and essays from every theological and philosophical perspective possible. For my seminary master’s thesis, I argued that God wasn’t involved or even concerned about individual suffering. Instead, he allowed a specific kind of suffering for the purification of the church, his new Israel. It was a good piece of work but, in the grand tradition of theology, was complete rubbish when it came to the real world. So I continued to struggle with the issue after seminary and for many years after leaving the ministry. Obsessed, I truly felt that although human voices had awakened me to a major problem with the Christian view of God, I was now drowning in a murky sea of theology and philosophy with no lifeline in sight. I grew increasingly depressed and mentally exhausted with what became my personal “koan” (a Zen problem, riddle or puzzle that cannot be resolved by rational thought), until, like a Zen student, I let go, realizing that, like any good koan, the answer is in the riddle itself.

Why does an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God allow evil? He doesn’t, because he doesn’t exist. After all, where was he while I so fervently sought the Holy Grail? You would think defending himself would be one of his major concerns.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rationaldoubt/2016/12/help-castle-haunted/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

You should probably state exactly what you think the Golden Rule is. trotsky Dec 2016 #1
Here, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #18
That's probably the most common, but there is a problem with it. trotsky Dec 2016 #19
Oh OK! hrmjustin Dec 2016 #2
This thread is the equivalent of running around a room while your underwear is burning. rug Dec 2016 #14
Well this room is usually entertaining. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #33
Epicurus asked: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #3
If you believe in the God of the Abrahmaic tradition, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #6
No it doesn't. trotsky Dec 2016 #9
Well, do you not believe in free will? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #10
"Free will" vs. "pre-destination" is such a simplistic, binary view. trotsky Dec 2016 #15
I believe that all sentient beings have free will. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #22
My answer is that it's too complex of a question for such a simplistic answer. trotsky Dec 2016 #52
If I were currently living in heaven I would certainly answer it. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #58
Let's put it this way, then. trotsky Dec 2016 #62
One assumes so. If the soul is a reflection/aspect of intelligence........ guillaumeb Dec 2016 #65
Well then, you've answered the question. trotsky Dec 2016 #71
Again, you are asking me to speculate on something I have never experienced. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #73
I'm just asking what you believe. Just to understand what you think "free will" means. trotsky Dec 2016 #87
You are mixing many things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #91
You're the one who believes in all this stuff. trotsky Dec 2016 #95
I also find some of your responses to be "fascinating". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #99
No, I'm not interested in your red herring to distract and wiggle out of the contradiction. trotsky Dec 2016 #108
My challenge to you is to post my alleged "contradictions". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #118
I just did. trotsky Dec 2016 #126
Your ability to dismiss what you disagree with is great. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #131
Well yeah, when you help me so effectively. trotsky Dec 2016 #134
Bitter and losing are the terms that apparently help you. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #137
Just as insulting others and making false accusations apparently help you. trotsky Dec 2016 #141
I clicked, hoping for a list of my many contradictions, and found a repeat. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #142
You've made your choice. The attacks continue. trotsky Dec 2016 #143
Ah, a clue. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #145
You mischaracterized my post (which wasn't even my words), and attacked a straw man instead. trotsky Dec 2016 #146
You decided to post it. You could have qualified it with a comment, if you had wished to do so. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #147
I see absolutely no reason to respond to any of your distractions. trotsky Dec 2016 #149
See post #150. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #151
Irrelevant. trotsky Dec 2016 #154
Oh, and another thing you're dead WRONG about. trotsky Dec 2016 #148
If memory serves, 47% of Catholics supported Clinton. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #150
Catholics voted for Trump, 52-47. trotsky Dec 2016 #152
The spin or parsing is all yours. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #155
I can't put it any clearer than this: trotsky Dec 2016 #157
Again, it is not clear and the lack of clarity is yours. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #159
While I don't agree with Trotsky Dorian Gray Dec 2016 #207
I am presenting my view of what the numbers represent. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #209
The difference was significant enough for Trump to win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #167
And did Trump win these states solely because of the Catholic vote? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #171
It's a significant difference from the overall vote, and you asked for an explanation muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #175
Significant is your term. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #181
No, you introduced 'significant' in #150 muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #182
First, my apologies for attribution. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #183
Yes, all those groups are significant in his win (nt) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #185
I forgot to add: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #188
It's not just about the acts of sentient beings, though muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #16
And how does this relate to sentient beings having free will? eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #26
I'm talking about what's in the OP muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #28
The charges rely on a human vision of what a Creator "must" be. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #29
That's a get-out that would work for religions that don't claim humans were made muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #31
"Made in the image" refers to sentience, not physical appearance. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #37
Yes, that's my point; free will is about sentience, and a religion that believes muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #41
Sentience is self awareness. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #42
Why indeed? The religions that claim humans are made in the image of 'God' muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #44
Not likely. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #45
So you see 'the Creator' as different from Jesus - Jesus exemplified following the Golden Rule muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #47
The Jesus/Creator/Spirit question is a different issue. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #59
Again, this is not just about 'free will' - it's about human and animal suffering muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #61
Let us examine this a little: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #64
Do you think that eliminating smallpox got rid of free will? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #67
If one believes that the Creator created, and allowed that creation to continue, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #68
But the Abrahamic religions don't believe the Creator just allowed everything to continue muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #69
Inspiration is indeed the word. Or revelation if you prefer. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #70
"Allowing for free will has nothing to do with caring about what was created" - that's the point muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #72
My talk of free will is simply discussion of what free will entails. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #74
Sigh. Theodicy never gets seriously addressed by believers. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #76
I will not address it because nothing is proven here.It is a statement of belief. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #78
For someone unwilling to address theodicy, you've spent a hell of a long time on a thread about it muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #79
Not exactly: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #80
Here's where you said that: muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #81
Actually what you presented does not suppport your claim. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #82
"God created man in his own image", and as you said, that's about sentience muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #83
Evil is a social construct, not a condition. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #84
The question is whether 'God' is evil muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #85
The function of the Creator, or one of the possible functions, is to create. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #89
It's not about 'curing evil'. It's not about 'evil' as a social construct. muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #90
And human standards of "evil" and "good" are variable. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #93
'Calamities', 'misfortunes', 'bad things' - yes, I think they come under 'mala' muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #94
"try to follow the example of Jesus" trotsky Dec 2016 #53
Sometimes I do take offense when people claim that I am saying the opposite of what I said. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #97
Thank you for illustrating again exactly what kind of Christian you are. trotsky Dec 2016 #109
And thank YOU for illustrating the kind of person that YOU are. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #119
Yeah, the kind who requests an apology from someone who has made a false accusation. trotsky Dec 2016 #127
Given the number of times you have "restated" my actual positions, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #132
Making Jesus proud! n/t trotsky Dec 2016 #135
Making deGrasse Tyson proud. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #138
The biblical God made us imperfect Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #17
More problematically... trotsky Dec 2016 #20
The Creator created. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #43
So what's the use of free will? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #110
You freely chose to type those words. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #120
Or? Always do the right thing automatically Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #194
If there were only one definition of "the right thing" for every potential action, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #197
But surely a God could show us the best thing? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #200
A question: guillaumeb Dec 2016 #203
So God doesn't help us Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #205
I believe that the Creator created. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #208
I'm not arguing there is no free will Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #211
Are you arguing for immortality? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #212
Should we be grateful for a free will, if it ... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #214
Arguing for a lack of free will? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #215
As an undesirable logical outcome of Christian thinking Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #216
A logical outcome of Christian thinking? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #218
Many Christian preachers do become moralistic, robotic dogmatists Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #220
Many is not all, or even most, but yes, many are dogmatists. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #222
I stopped all oaths Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #224
What is the purpose of repetition of a phrase/prayer/word sequence? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #226
It's mind deadening. Which is comforting in the same way Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #228
Is meditation mnd deadening, or is it a relaxation technique guillaumeb Dec 2016 #230
The type of meditation known as rational "thinking" is extremely useful. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #234
Rational thinking is a judgemental term. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #235
When God sent an evil spirit to destroy someone... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #23
Are you a Biblical literalist or a believer in the Bible as metaphor? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #27
Metaphorically, symbolically, evidentially? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #48
Again, you are judging a Creator by your human standards. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #55
God's standards and worldview suck then. EvilAL Dec 2016 #88
Pure projection. As well to say that because the Creator created roses that the thorns are evidence guillaumeb Dec 2016 #92
But if God does many, many things that seem evil? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #98
One key word is "seem". guillaumeb Dec 2016 #102
So your Christianity abandons the Bible Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #111
Like most modern Christians, trotsky Dec 2016 #115
Your second sentence confirms my point about evil being a social construct. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #121
Everything you have said in this thread has been "simply your opinion." trotsky Dec 2016 #130
Again, feel free to point out what you find confusing, or contradictory. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #133
Again, I already did. trotsky Dec 2016 #136
A weak try. But I understand. eom guillaumeb Dec 2016 #139
How is that projection? EvilAL Dec 2016 #164
I can only answer with my beliefs. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #169
It's odd we are allowed to err, in order to grow Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #206
If you were perfect, there could be no growth. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #210
So God is bad, since he can't improve, or grow larger. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #217
Bad is a social construct. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #219
So neither can we call God "good." Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #221
Perhaps another Creator could. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #223
So they're irrelevant to each other Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #225
If you believe that one created the other not really irrelevant. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #227
It might be incontrovertible to logic Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #229
To paraphrase Pilate, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #231
Logic is best defined as formal logic Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #232
Sometimes people use the word "logic" guillaumeb Dec 2016 #233
Dawkins says free will is an illusion. Nt DeadEyeDyck Dec 2016 #34
Dawkins might be deceiving himself. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #39
Tell that to Rush. Dorian Gray Dec 2016 #86
Free will? -- We have no choice!! immoderate Dec 2016 #105
Would you choose otherwise to be a puppet? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #106
You were predestined to say that. immoderate Dec 2016 #107
I am not a believer in predestination. It conflicts with the idea of free will. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #123
And if you didn't have free will, would you know it? immoderate Dec 2016 #166
Are we simply playing a part directed by a non-human director? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #170
If any of those scenarios are true, we wouldn't know it. Dreams, delusions are there... immoderate Dec 2016 #172
One way to approach things. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #173
...for each individual, as long as it doesn't impose on others. immoderate Dec 2016 #174
Grow or die? guillaumeb Dec 2016 #180
C'mon now. immoderate Dec 2016 #184
Now we return to the question of atheism. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #186
So you believe in every unproven supernatural entity? immoderate Dec 2016 #189
No, I said that I believe that there are many paths. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #190
What water does is observable. immoderate Dec 2016 #191
Belief. Make believe refers to the act of deliberately pretending to believe. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #192
Sure. Beliefs are involuntary. I understand. immoderate Dec 2016 #193
I disagree. I feel that believing or not-believing is a deliberate act. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #196
There's a middle ground between being a puppet, and having perfect free will. trotsky Dec 2016 #116
There is no "god" as perceived by theists J_William_Ryan Dec 2016 #4
There is proof in the scientific sense, and proof in the personal sense. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #5
What's the difference, exactly? Ron Obvious Dec 2016 #7
Proof in the scientific sense is one thing. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #8
OK, fair enough, but I'd say you're abusing the language. Ron Obvious Dec 2016 #11
The problem with this particular format of write/wait/respond is that of nuance. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #24
But "faith if it has no works is dead." So real faith produces physical works. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #32
No, faith without works is generally interpreted to mean guillaumeb Dec 2016 #38
Including physically helping poor people (James 2.14-26). Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #49
I feel you are confusing issues. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #56
Yes, if you support something with your mouth, but not deeds? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #96
Humans generally do anthropomorphize when speaking about an unknown entity. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #101
If your god can't really be spoken of in human terms... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #112
Our terms represent our attempts to understand the nature of a deity. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #122
Then something useful CAN be said about God? Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #195
Anything that humans say represent what humans feel is true. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #198
So your defense of "faith" say, Is unreliable.... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #201
I am not defending faith. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #204
You 1) seem to have an emotional attachment to faith Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #213
That's not the universal biblical or dictionary definition of faith Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #21
I disagree. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #25
It means that your religious definition of proof as in part faith... Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #30
Non-overlapping magisteria. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #36
Non-overlapping magesteria? Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #46
we are talking about scientific proof versus religious faith. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #54
I know very well what we're talking about. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #63
Agreed. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #66
I'm focusing on your notion of faith as "proof": Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #50
Faith needs no science. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #57
Faith needs no science. Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #100
No, religion might reference the physical world, and recognize certain things about that world, guillaumeb Dec 2016 #103
Much of religion rejects, even "hates," the whole "world." Bretton Garcia Dec 2016 #113
There is no overlap that I can see. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #124
"science is not necessary to have faith" trotsky Dec 2016 #117
Can you prove something is beautiful? DeadEyeDyck Dec 2016 #35
Define beauty in such a way that every person agrees to the meaning. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #40
First I'll need incontrovertible proof of the existence of God. Iggo Dec 2016 #12
God is not evil. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #13
Santa is also evil. And the Tooth-Fairy is evil. And the real monster is Dr. Frankenstein himself. DetlefK Dec 2016 #51
Well now, nil desperandum Dec 2016 #60
The god of the Bible is a vengeful and jealous god Angry Dragon Dec 2016 #75
From the Gnostic perspective ymetca Dec 2016 #77
What god? Guess what, there isn't one! n/t RKP5637 Dec 2016 #104
This certainly turned out to be an interesting thread! hrmjustin Dec 2016 #114
Well nil desperandum Dec 2016 #125
These are questions that have been asked for a long time and will continue to be. hrmjustin Dec 2016 #128
Indeed.... nil desperandum Dec 2016 #129
Interesting is one way to describe it. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #140
I don't think you've bothered reading the OP muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #144
A baseless claim. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #158
Yet you think that can be summed up as "this proves there is no Creator" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2016 #162
The "God is evil by reason of non-interention" argument falls under the whole concept. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #168
Well these questions bring up a lot of emotions and feelings and some people hrmjustin Dec 2016 #156
God is not evil. HassleCat Dec 2016 #153
Or maybe God.... Aviation Pro Dec 2016 #160
Weird post RelativelyJones Dec 2016 #161
How can you get away with saying "God" is male when I get fried for calling Pamela Taylor rzemanfl Dec 2016 #163
George Carlin would agree with you nycbos Dec 2016 #165
Numero uno-who the hell is DL? As a mere mortal, I pose this question. If mankind has been cornball 24 Dec 2016 #176
Check your reasoning. Humans go back about 100-200,000 years. immoderate Dec 2016 #177
Homo group-2 million years. Check your facts. cornball 24 Dec 2016 #178
Sorry, off by an order. My error. immoderate Dec 2016 #179
Define "smarter" Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #187
Comparative degree of "smart". Thanks for sharing your hygienic routine. Our progenitors cornball 24 Dec 2016 #199
I could go on. Act_of_Reparation Dec 2016 #202
God can't be evil Bradical79 Dec 2016 #236
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»This is incontrovertible ...»Reply #83