Chris ([info]randomchris) wrote,
@ 2003-06-14 11:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Sermon #8: How to decide what you really believe


Part 1:

Break down all the assumptions that arise from your upbringing. Imagine you'd been raised a Muslim, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Satanist even - which of your beliefs would change? Which would stay the same, based purely on what you've seen of the world around you and trying to ignore what you have been told by others?

Take a while to answer that one. It took me a good couple of months, back when I was 19.

Part 2:

Let's take a sample of what to believe here.

First set of choices:
1) God does not exist
2) God exists, but only in the "blind watchmaker" sense - i.e. he created the universe but has no influence on the world
3) God exists and has finite power to change the world
4) God exists and has infinite power to change the world
edit: 5) God is the world

I found that I believed 3, and also that I believe God works through human beings to make this world what he wants it to be. (You'll note that there is also an implied belief here that God knows what is best for us and is striving towards that.) I decided I didn't believe 4 on the grounds that the world is decidedly not perfect - and accepted 3 on the grounds that it is slowly getting better.

Important point: given the evidence we have available to us, any of these beliefs is a valid one to hold, and I have no issue with anyone who makes an informed choice of one of the others.

Next set of choices:

1) There is no life after death.
2) There is life after death, but it is unaffected by our actions on this world.
3) There is life after death, and what we do in this world affects our status in the next (usually because God has ordained it that way).

This is more of a damage-limitation exercise. I chose 3 because, as you can clearly see, it makes sure that what I do has a purpose to it and that I get rewarded for it. (Yes, a selfish purpose. Human beings are naturally selfish to some extent.) Again, 1 and 2 are also valid choices.

Next set of choices - what actions should we do to be rewarded in "life after death" / heaven / nirvana / Valhalla / your choice of afterlife?

I believe that our state after death is related entirely to our spiritual state. I found in myself a deep-seated belief that we should care for others, and take the actions, under any circumstances, that do them the most good and encourage them to do that for others. Recently, I've also added caring for the earth to my list of good things (see sermon #7 on what a sin is) as it is God's creation.

With me so far? I hope you can understand why I've made each choice, and appreciate that I've considered the other ones.

A sequel will follow soon, dealing with organised religion, and how the choices you've made here should affect whether you follow a religion, and which one you choose.

Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]nickys
2003-06-14 03:49 am UTC (link)
> accepted 3 on the grounds that it is slowly getting better.

I don't think that's can be assumed at all.
High technology has made life safer and more luxurious for those of us who live in the Westernised parts of the world - but there are still loads of people in the world who live as they have always lived, on the land, without high-tech help.

And history is surprisingly cyclical. Gay rights and women's rights, for example, appear and disappear again at various points in history.
We might be on the up-swing of another cycle just now and the next down-swing might be only a generation or two in the future.


I agree with you that 4. is impossible unless God is a psychopath who enjoys hurting people.


Another thing that's interesting is how the view of sin has changed in Western society over the years. Nowadays we're much more focussed on the victim, so we assess sin on the basis of how much harm it does to others. They used to assess sin on the basis of how much it damaged the soul of the sinner - how much they strayed from the path of righteousness within themselves.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-14 03:59 am UTC (link)
They used to assess sin on the basis of how much it damaged the soul of the sinner - how much they strayed from the path of righteousness within themselves.

I agree with this. I would say that 'sin' is what damages your soul - by which I mean your ability/strength to do what is right, and 'wrongdoing' is what damages others. The two obviously overlap a lot, but they are distinct.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]randomchris
2003-06-14 04:38 am UTC (link)
'sin' is what damages your soul - by which I mean your ability/strength to do what is right

Thank you. That's been a link that is missing from my argument, and I've just realised it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]randomchris
2003-06-14 04:53 am UTC (link)
I hope we're not heading for another down-swing.

Still, though, there are improvements - technology is bringing about many of them. The fact that people can now travel easily (as opposed to 100 years ago) and send resources around the world quickly to help others is making the world a far, far better place (wells being dug in African countries, medical aid being sent, food aid to those suffering from famine, peacekeepers being placed in war zones to prevent conflict), and that's something that could not have happened until the last century. (Admittedly that potential is not being used to its full extent yet, but it's getting there.) I also can't see, for example, the recent victory for gay marriage in Canada now getting overturned, and other countries may eventually follow that.

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I think there is cause to believe that the world, on average, is becoming a better place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
This is probably entirely too long, so I apologize in advance
[info]alwaschoen
2003-06-14 05:57 am UTC (link)
Technology is, of course, only a tool, and, as such, amoral and a double-edged sword. The same flight that carries UN Development Programme officers to a well-digging in Cameroon might on its return trip carry a group of militants to their mission, and the same shipping services that allow one the ability to overnight medical supplies to Ankara also allow others to mail more harmful parcels, should they so choose.

Many human development case studies have shown that, in many cases, technology has lowered, rather than raised, local standards of living. This can be seen in places such as the slums outside Mexico City, which consist largely of people forced from subsistence farming on small, quiet family farms due to increased efficiency and technology. These people now live in shantytowns, forced to work in unhygienic, disease-ridden conditions in factories established in the name of progress and development. Personally, I'd rather live an "undeveloped" life working in my own field and producing food for my family than drinking from feces-filled gutters and toiling 12-14 hour days on dangerous machinery for a pittance.

This doesn't, of course, disprove your assertion that the world is improving, but it does add a certain caveat to embracing the view that technology, "progress," &c. improve the world. Honestly, I find few actual indicators that quality of life on this planet has seen any kind of net improvement over the past centuries.

As for regression in human rights and freedoms (esp. gay rights), 1929-1934 were only five years, but ask the Berliners just how quickly things can change.

Also, as a quick comment to your first set of choices-- I think you may have dismissed too quickly the possibility of #4... Imperfection of the system is not necessarily evidence of limitation of God's power. It may very well be that what we see as gross amounts of injustice and unnecessary pain is merely acceptable collateral damage when it comes to the endgame. I think to limit ourselves to the possibility that 1) God knows, but isn't doing anything about it, or 2) God knows, but can't do anything about it, is somewhat myopic when there remains 3) God knows, and can do something, but isn't, and we're not sure why.

Please don't think I'm simply waxing Panglossian (or, worse, Calvinist) here. I get just as ticked off with God as anyone, and he certainly hears about it. However, if the whole point of the game is an afterlife and unity/relationship/whatever with God, I find it difficult to imagine how the whole thing would function were we never faced with obstacles or the oppotunity to make wrong choices. To dismiss this last choice out of hand as simply unthinkable seems to me to be a bit hasty.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nickys
2003-06-14 09:53 am UTC (link)
> what we see as gross amounts of injustice and unnecessary pain is merely acceptable collateral damage when it comes to the endgame.

That doesn't work if you subscribe to the Christian view that God cares for each individual and that individual actions are important.
Collateral Damage is a phrase for those who divide the world into Them (who don't matter) and Us (who do).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]alwaschoen
2003-06-14 01:26 pm UTC (link)
"Collateral damage" may have been a bit flippant. What I mean to emphasize is not some marginalization of individuals, but rather that in this particular worldview, what really matters is not the physical body, but the soul and afterlife.

I think in many ways a distinction needs to be drawn between the concept of the caring God as portrayed in Christian theology and the concept of the overprotective no-harm-will-come-to-you God that so many people (including many Christians) seem to wish were portrayed, instead. When I flip through the Bible, I see plenty of discussion of trouble, obstacles, and pain, and especially how these should be counted as opportunities for growth. I see no promises that God will protect from pain in all cases (quite the contrary, in fact); rather, what I run into are assurances that those with faith in him can be assured that he'll protect their soul.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nickys
2003-06-14 01:48 pm UTC (link)
I still think there are some problems with the argument.

Why do babies and young children suffer terrible things? They're not self-aware enough to choose how to respond to the suffering, so their souls can't possibly benefit. You could argue that it teaches their parents stuff, but that really destroys the concept of individuality if a child's only purpose in life is to be used as a lesson for others.

Secondly, there's the magnitude of problems. Some problems are ones that you can grow and learn from, but others are just too big. Consider, for example, a car accident leading to persistent vegetative state - the ability to think and make choices has gone from the body, so, again how can the soul benefit?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]nickys
2003-06-14 09:46 am UTC (link)
> I also can't see, for example, the recent victory for gay marriage in Canada now getting overturned, and other countries may eventually follow that.

Sorry, but there's a pretty recent historical precedent for that. Berlin in the 1930s had a thriving gay scene, and look what happened there...


As to the rest of it, modern travel is good, but it's a luxury restricted to the rich (on a world scale). People always did travel vast distances, it just used to take longer.
Now, although travel is theoretically easier it's so expensive that your average Ethiopian farmer isn't able to afford it... and if he could he'd arrive here to a howling mob screaming about Asylum Seekers.

And, although medical aid is good, things like wells and famine relief wouldn't be necessary on anything like the scale they are at the moment if the previously self-sufficient communities hadn't been displaced or had their resources disrupted by industry, mining or political conflict (often fuelled by the legacy of colonialism).
And technology has also given us nuclear weapons, among other less happy things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]maleficent
2003-06-15 03:38 pm UTC (link)
I agree with you that 4. is impossible unless God is a psychopath who enjoys hurting people.

Reminds me of an argument proposed by Sade about how it was impossible for God to be good and omnipotent and all-knowing. His reasoning was that, since evil exists either a) God allowed it to exist and was therefore not good or b) God couldn't prevent evil's existence and was therefore not omnipotent or c) God was testing people by allowing evil to exist and was therefore not all-knowing. Or something like that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nickys
2003-06-16 01:18 am UTC (link)
Yes, I've always felt that a) and b) taken together were a sufficient argument against the existence of the Christian style of God.
They don't rule out pantheistic systems, because each individual God is specifically not all-powerful and also it's possible that the bad stuff that happens is because the Gods are fighting it out amongst themselves.

c) is interesting. It's another argument towards the idea that the Christian view of God is incompatible with the notion of free will.


I read an article in Human Nature Review recently about a religion which has sprung up among homeless children in the US - basically their world view is that God is dead and an evil angel has taken over the world, but that there are forces fighting against the evil angel.
The article had some interesting stuff about how the religion has evolved in such a way as to give the kids hope in spite of the fact that they are clearly in a terrible situation which they have almost no control over.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-14 03:54 am UTC (link)
Interesting.

Part 1 is tricky. I'm not sure it's something I want to do (or can do) as a single exercise - rather that every time I come across different beliefs I think "does that chime with my experience?" "does that fit with what I see in the world?" I've recently learned a little more about Taoism, and a lot of that makes sense to me. With Christianity, it's not that I think it couldn't be true, but that I don't want it to be (something I mean to post on at some point).

Predictably, my answer to the next question depends on what you mean by God. I'd say I'm probably somewhere between 1 and 2 (1 1/4?), since I identify quite strongly with pantheism which basically says that the universe is God. So God is conscious but only through our individual consciousnesses we were created that the universe might know itself and all that. Arguably that then puts me somewhere between 1 and 3 as we have the power to change the world, and we are part of God. But I don't believe in some kind of separate conscious supernatural entity.

My second answer is 1. Firstly, I think, because I feel my identity is very strongly tied up with my physical form - without the sensations of the material world I would feel like there was a significant chunk of me missing. Secondly because I see us as animals (and no more) and with no reason to suppose that our experience should differ from theirs (if animals don't have souls, then at what point exactly did we acquire one? were there tribes of proto-humans where some went on to eternal life & some didn't?) if they do then what exactly would comprise the immortal soul of a cockroach (and, since computers are arguably more complex than a cockroach, why don't they have immortal souls?)

I found in myself a deep-seated belief that we should care for others, and take the actions, under any circumstances, that do them the most good and encourage them to do that for others.

I entirely agree with this, again mostly for selfish reasons, but in my case the selfish reasons are rooted purely in this life - quite simply I feel good when I do what I believe to be good things, and bad when I don't.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 12:55 pm UTC (link)
With Christianity, it's not that I think it couldn't be true, but that I don't want it to be (something I mean to post on at some point).

I used to feel that way. Then one day I didn't. One day all the paradoxes and confusion that Christianity caused in me just sort of melted away. I hope you experience that one day.

So God is conscious but only through our individual consciousnesses we were created that the universe might know itself and all that.

Doesn't that require the universe to have a pre-existing intentions?

My second answer is 1. Firstly, I think, because I feel my identity is very strongly tied up with my physical form - without the sensations of the material world I would feel like there was a significant chunk of me missing.

I think the afterlife is a hyperreality in which the senses are fully aware of everything to a subatomic level, and space, time and form are no longer boundaries. Where past and future fold into an everpresent eternal Now, movement and thought are inseperable, and everything makes perfect sense. I don't think that Heaven is divoreced from material reality, I think it is the culmination and complete experience of material reality.

The whole idea of a fluffy cloud world were everyone is divorced from material sensation and just thinks happy thoughst guided by God is, at best, a silly 13th century superstition. Bad poetry.

Secondly because I see us as animals (and no more) and with no reason to suppose that our experience should differ from theirs

Except that we are apparently self-domesticating, while they are not. Also, we time-bind information, which they do not. Also, we can imagine the supernatural and transcedent (I can't demonstarte that they do not, but I have never seen an animal in the wild make an altar or draw a picture or attempt to invoke magic and the supernatural).

(if animals don't have souls, then at what point exactly did we acquire one? were there tribes of proto-humans where some went on to eternal life & some didn't?)

If one consider the soul as some scientific abstraction, some change in the brain, then it almost certainly would have evolved in only some humans and then spread through genetic heredity.

In a scientific sense, having a "soul" may be the actual cause of our "damnnation". The sense that so many have of being divorced from their instincts, with the simultaneous total fear of sucumbing to natural instincts (or more properly, fear of others doing what comes natural).

I much prefer the idea that a soul is a gift from God.

if they do then what exactly would comprise the immortal soul of a cockroach (and, since computers are arguably more complex than a cockroach, why don't they have immortal souls?)

I don't think cockroaches have souls. Or computers. A computer with a soul would be strange. Would it's soul dissappear when it powered down? Would it reload the same soul when it powered back up, or would a new soul be created?

My roommate and I just discussed this, and we have decided that the memory of a computer is it's soul, and that the hardware forms it's genetics. Because of this, a new soul is created every time the computer is loaded, while the body the soul incarnates remains the same (though, due to the nature of machines, the genetics may be changed by a third party from incarnation to incarnation).

Interestingly enough, if one simply pulls the plug on a computer, it crashes, and this makes it much more difficult to incarnate the next soul into the computer. However, if one tells a computer to kill itself, it promptly gets it's affairs in order and then commits suicide. thus enabling the easy incarnation of the next soul.

Stick that in your metaphysical pipe and smoke it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-15 03:07 pm UTC (link)
Doesn't that require the universe to have a pre-existing intentions?

That was me letting the poetry of words override literal meaning. It would be more accurate to say I believe that we came into existence, and through us, the universe knows itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]razor_spazy
2003-06-14 12:52 pm UTC (link)
part 1 is tricky
having been raised christian, no matter how hard i try to reject god, it's a belief that's ingrained in my head
recently, i was wondering if the reason i can't completely turn my back on god could be that faith is in the soul...so humans being born with a soul automatically have some sense of faith (no matter how deep they repress it/logic themselves out of it)...?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]randomchris
2003-06-14 03:56 pm UTC (link)
If it's that ingrained in your head, stick with it - in the absence of any convincing evidence, and given a choice of what to believe and being told to choose, the only thing you can go with is your instinct.

Faith is in the soul - intriguing idea. If so, how did it get there if God didn't put it there? Do we have an evolved need to believe in a higher power?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-14 08:11 pm UTC (link)
First set of choices:

You left off this possibility:
5) God is the world

All of your options presuppose that God and Reality are in someway seperated. This is the exact opposite of what I believe, that God is the world.

Also, you reasoning for rejecting 4 in favor of 3 is completely spurious. An imperfect world* is not proof against an infinitely powerful God. God could very well not be interested in making the world "perfect". A God with the power to make any changes it wished would not be obligated to make such changes.

*I would also disagree that the world is in anyway imperfect. I believe that perception of imperfection in creation is the fault of flawed perception by the subject. The world is exactly as it should be. Anyone who is truly right with God can see that clearly.

Next set of choices:

Another option includes the possibility that we are already immortal and eternal, and simply unable to see or recgnize that fact that we are always alive and dead. Life and death, like time and space, may be mere illusion.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-15 03:55 am UTC (link)
An imperfect world* is not proof against an infinitely powerful God.

No, but it is hard to reconcile with an infinitely powerful and infinitely good God, in the sense that we understand 'good' i.e. doing what He can to prevent unnecessary suffering.

I would also disagree that the world is in anyway imperfect. I believe that perception of imperfection in creation is the fault of flawed perception by the subject.

But aren't we part of creation ourselves? In which case, by that argument, perfect, so how can have 'flawed' (i.e. imperfect) perception?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 08:46 am UTC (link)
No, but it is hard to reconcile with an infinitely powerful and infinitely good God, in the sense that we understand 'good' i.e. doing what He can to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Perhaps suffering is a necessary part of spiritual growth. There is no reason to presume that a infinitely powerful and infinitely good God would act as we would. Remember that our perception of the world is very localized and limited. We can't see the entirety of time in a single moment as God can.

But aren't we part of creation ourselves? In which case, by that argument, perfect, so how can have 'flawed' (i.e. imperfect) perception?

Because we are sinful and fallen. We are seperated forever from the Garden of Eden (a perfect world) not by time and space, but by a simple trick of the eye.

Consider this:


This is an eye, just like your eyes. Light comes through a series of lens and is projected onto the back of the eye, were the different photons bouncing off are translated to electrical signals that the brain interprets.

This drawing doesn't show it, but the lens in our eye actually invert the world we see. The world is projected upside down on the back of our corneas. But our brain interprets all the information as right side up.

So we aren't actually seeing what we are seeing. Our brain is taking in our enviornemnt and creating a "virtual reality" inside our head, which is the infleunced by our thoughts and ideas of the world. And it is here, in our brains, that the imperfect world exist. Not out there in the world we are percieving.

And so you see, we are already perfect the way God has made us. The world is already perfect the way God made it. But something in us is different from the rest of the world. We have 'eaten from the tree of knowledge' and now we can see the evil in our actions and in the world. And because this evil terrifies and frightens us, entices and lures us, because we cannot simply live free by our natures without suffering, we say that we are sinful.

Does that make sense?

Peace,
Kenneth

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-15 10:07 am UTC (link)
Perhaps suffering is a necessary part of spiritual growth

Perhaps. That seems to be what [info]nickys and [info]alwaschoen are discussing in their comments above, so I won't repeat their arguments here.

Does that make sense?

It does (I don't completely agree, but it's a consistent & valid point of view). It sounds to me like you're a panentheist (the material universe is
God, but God is also more than that) rather than a pantheist (the material universe is God and that's all there is), since what you are saying implies that at some point we diverged from God's intentions for us (since presumably God did not generate this flaw in our perception - we, somehow, did that ourselves) and hence that God is a being with intentions, which the material universe does not appear to have. You also say that God created the universe, which implies God existed before the universe, which again is consistent with panentheism but not pantheism.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 11:21 am UTC (link)
It does (I don't completely agree, but it's a consistent & valid point of view). It sounds to me like you're a panentheist (the material universe is
God, but God is also more than that) rather than a pantheist (the material universe is God and that's all there is),

That's a new term for me, but it does seem to fit. I consider myself a trinitarian. I believe that God has three aspects: The Holy Father (which gives intention and meaning to things, and is best represented by concepts such as Logos, the Word, reason, etc.), the Holy Spirit (which I consider synomous with the world, and best understood by Bell's theory of non-local connectivity and quantum theory), and Jesus (whom can be considered as an archetypal manifestation of the perfected or enlightened human).

since what you are saying implies that at some point we diverged from God's intentions for us (since presumably God did not generate this flaw in our perception - we, somehow, did that ourselves)

As encapsulated in the poetic metaphor of Adam & Eve's fall.

and hence that God is a being with intentions, which the material universe does not appear to have.

God is claimed to have unknowable and mysterious intentions, that can only be understood through the interpretation of revelation guided by God (in the sense of Logos, reason, and faith, in the sense of goodwill).

You also say that God created the universe, which implies God existed before the universe, which again is consistent with panentheism but not pantheism.

Okay.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-15 11:56 am UTC (link)
That's a new term for me

Yes - I only came across it myself about a year ago, and it's not in a lot of dictionaries, but it seems like a concept which should have a name and it seems to be becoming more widely accepted - googling reveals amongst others this page which looks at panentheism from a Christian perspective. I've not heard it identified with the Holy Spirit before, though - was that something you came up with yourself?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 01:09 pm UTC (link)
I've not heard it identified with the Holy Spirit before, though - was that something you came up with yourself?

No. It's a very, very old idea found in Catholic mysticism (I consider myself a Catholic mystic). I tend to think of the Holy Spirit as the binding force of reality. Bell's nonlocality. Protestants attribute that element to Christ, but I see the Holy Spirit as being the least characterized of the Trinity, while Christ is the most "fleshed-out", being an actual human.

I can imagine the Holy Spirit comprising in some part the make up of all of reality, but it's hard for me to imagine a little tiny Jesus in every atom.

Of course, in some sense, all three faces of the Trinity are one being, so in some sense Jesus Is the Holy Spirit. And there is a little tiny Jesus in every atom. It's just hard to imagine.

btw, I'm adding you to my friends list., You're interesting. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]ixwin
2003-06-15 03:16 pm UTC (link)
Thank-you!

Have taken a look at your journal. You're not easily categorisable and I like that.

As I note on my userinfo page, I don't have an "automatically add back" policy, but I'll definitely be checking out your entries over the next few weeks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 11:43 am UTC (link)
I just realized I used a href tag rather than an img tag.

D'oh!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]randomchris
2003-06-15 06:20 am UTC (link)
In what sense do you believe that God is the world - is the whole universe God (pantheism) or just the world? (I assume you mean the former).

I don't suppose God and Reality to be entirely separate, but I feel a definite difference between the world that we live on and the presence of God in it. Again, this is just going on my instinct.

As [info]nickys put it, if God is all-powerful, and doesn't object to the world being this way, then something's wrong with either our collective sense of what is good, or with God's. It also eliminates our free will, meaning that all an-powerful God does not object to me believing the way I do, otherwise he would change it. Maybe it's our perceptions that are wrong, but I can't really see 4 working under any other circumstances.

I don't know anyone else who believes that the world in its current state is perfect - what's the point of trying to do anything in it, then? For me, if I believed that the world was already perfect, it would remove the point of my existence.

But of course, since it's your choice to believe those things, then I have to admit it's possible (though difficult) to justify, and you have a right to them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]lovecrafty
2003-06-15 09:13 am UTC (link)
In what sense do you believe that God is the world - is the whole universe God (pantheism) or just the world? (I assume you mean the former).

Yes by "world" I mean "universe" or alternately, "reality". I also mean the world as seperated from human activity. Take away all the humans and the consequences of all human action to date, and you would have a completely perfect world.

I mena this in the sense that God created the world, is invested in it in at all times. Because God is omnipresent, everywhere and everywhen simultaneously. This is the third aspect fo the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.

We are not perfect. We are seperated from the world by Sin. Do not confuse the damage and destruction caused by the desires of men from imperfections in the world.

I don't suppose God and Reality to be entirely separate, but I feel a definite difference between the world that we live on and the presence of God in it. Again, this is just going on my instinct.

But your instinct is flawed and sinful. It is sinfulness that prevents you from seeing the God is everywhere and in all things.

if God is all-powerful, and doesn't object to the world being this way, then something's wrong with either our collective sense of what is good, or with God's

And since God is perfect, then we must assume that there is something wrong with our "collective sense of good." Now I find this very easy to believe, since almost everyone I know has a conception of Good that is so shallow and self-serving that it makes one ashamed to be human.

It also eliminates our free will, meaning that all an-powerful God does not object to me believing the way I do, otherwise he would change it.

How does God allowing you to think as you will eliminate free will? It seems to me that the fact that we can think as we will does the exact opposite, it stands as proof of our free will.

Maybe it's our perceptions that are wrong, but I can't really see 4 working under any other circumstances.

That is exactly it. Our perceptions are in error. clouded by our egoic desire for the world to be other than as God made it.

I don't know anyone else who believes that the world in its current state is perfect - what's the point of trying to do anything in it, then? For me, if I believed that the world was already perfect, it would remove the point of my existence.

I think you may be confusing the world and human activity. Human activity is quite destructive, and it is worth our time to teach each other how to see the world properly and to realize it's perfection.

The world is also damaged through our actions. The enviornment is unstable because we pollute it, the animals are dissappearing because we hunt them for sport and clothing, the water's become poisonous - did you know that there will eventually be no more salmon and trout? Aretificial hormones from women's birth control pills have made it into the natural bodies of waters, and those hormones affect the male fish, turning them into intersexed "it's" that can't breed. So salmon and trout (and other fish as well) populations, already hunted to next to nothing, are dwindling ever faster now.

And so we see how in our arrogance and pride we destroy the world. The Catholic Church has been decrying chemical birth control as a sin against God for decades, and only now are we seeing that they were right: birth control is destroying our enviornment. And so it is that we always recognize that God was right in giving us his commandments and telling us how to live.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]randomchris
2003-06-16 03:44 am UTC (link)
But your instinct is flawed and sinful. It is sinfulness that prevents you from seeing the God is everywhere and in all things.

My instinct is not sinful - it's a part of me. It might be flawed, but calling it sinful is very misleading.

And since God is perfect, then we must assume that there is something wrong with our "collective sense of good." Now I find this very easy to believe, since almost everyone I know has a conception of Good that is so shallow and self-serving that it makes one ashamed to be human.

That's still assuming that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient - I only believe he's omniscient. If he's not omnipotent, that argument doesn't hold up.

As far as I know, the hormones that are affecting fish are mainly from chemical farming methods, factory by-products, etc. Do you have a reference for how much of it is caused by birth control products?

(Incidentally, that argument is only against hormonal birth control - it doesn't argue against the use of, say, condoms - so even if it's genuine, it's not a validation of the Catholic view on birth control. But that's not majorly important.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]vio
2006-08-25 11:30 pm UTC (link)
I don't even know if I believe in God or not. But it doesn't stop me progressing. It's better not to know that to pretend we know. And it's alright not to know, really... :)

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…