I was reading through a philosophy book called “The Big Questions” by Robert C. Solomon, specifically, reading through the section on religion. My Mom’s friend had lent it too me so that I would think about my atheism (i.e. convert). As I read through the definitions of God, I thought about my ideas about God; that if he was omnipotent and omniscient and really wanted to create a universe and human beings he would have done it all emergently in one move (the big bang) and would not have to intervene at all as most religions say he does, and would be for all intents dead. So there was my way in which god exists and is still dead. Then, I came across Voltaires way of killing but not killing god, similar to mine, by saying that he was first cause, but nothing since.
Anyway, I found my way to “God as Aa Moral Being” which interested me a lot because that’s what I’ve always thought him to be, a social moralifyer, making drunks and womanizers into good, honest men. Case in point: the ten commandments.
The book makes the point, one I heartily agree with, that the difference between religious views that matter (Kierkegaard’s) and those that don’t (Voltaire’s) is the morality of god, and thus his dislike for some actions and like for others, and thus his punishment of some actions and reward of others. That’s the clincher. God with treats in one hand and a bat in the other, punishing the bad and loving the good. Without that aspect of god, the punishment of bad and reward of good, god is not god. In the same spirit, no matter how much a believer worships, unless he follows the teachings of god he is worthless. So religion is obviously consequentialist, right?
In a sentence: Is god supremely moral? If he didn’t punish and reward actions, or if he rewarded evil and punished good, would he still be god?
God IS the moral. He sets up and brings down. God sets up morals based on how He has set up creation.
Put it this way… if sex was not for reproduction in an evironment meant to be suitable for children with a man and a woman then it most likely would not be a sin to just pleasure yourself with anyone. It also beggs the question why would sex exist in the first place if so.
So think about it for a minute. You should not waste your time trying to ascertain God’s morality in any sense because as a limited being not being able to see all, hear all, and know all that He knows puts you at quite a serious disadvantage. This does not mean you shouldnt talk about it but it does mean that you should not make and judgements regarding it however.
In ever situation there is always more than meets the eye. How God determines blessings or stumblings based on then are not so readily apparent to us humans with blind eyes.
This also goes to explain why God would transcend His own rules because He does not participate in life as we do. However despite all, that God is quite forgiving considering what all has gone on before. Most people like to talk about how mean and judgemental God is… You will notice these people are the very same thing they accuse God of being.
So think of it in this fashion and this should throw many of you into a good loop.
If the person is evil… they think and call God evil.
As would a person dead of spirit say God does not exist.
If the person is good… they think and call God Good.
As would a person full of spirit say God is here.
Seriously think about the absolute implications of those 2 comments. It really begs to question… How much does that go to the “I AM”. Hopely this will garner some exellent insight regarding your post.
But uh, I think you missed the point. And your logic is all wrong (ooh, that tactical maneuver is called the flipperoo, very complex).
The question was, if god stopped judging our actions in any way, would he still be god?
Oh wait, I see where you got confused. I meant: is the idea of god supremely mortal? Is not a god’s morality essential, without which he would not be considered a god? Doesn’t every idea of god include him smiting the wicked?
Isn’t weird that our conception of good is the same as that of god? That rape is bad in both our opinions? A person who has the characteristics that we call evil would say that his god has the same characteristics, but he would call both himself and his god good. Which is besides the point.
Which idiom is polysemous? God or morality? I am trying to define god here, so the fact that the word is polysemous is in effect the problem to be solved. Basically I’m asking if the judging of human actions is part of god’s definition, just like blackness is part of the definition of crow.
As for the latter half of your statement, I do not understand. Are you trying to say that god is a process?
‘God’ is even more polysemous than ‘morality’, but each are VERY polysemous. They can even contradict eachother, and often do.
I would say: No. Morality and judgment of humans on earth does not have to be part of ‘god’, because a supriem being does not need to be obsessed with our actions before It can exist.
Gods are sometimes part of the mental process of assigning attribute to instance. Gods are the lively, human-like characteristics given to higher powers, mentally, as form itself is a symbolism of the 3dimensional mind.
Other times, gods are thought of as literal beings. They are merely super-empowered ego and lively form.
Monotheism is impossible if infinite infinities exist, because an absolute singularity will always be transcended by the ever expanding infinities.
I was saying that god is optionally a part of the preception process, and can optionally be either seen or unseen within anything and everything…
Well, if the Creator was perfect and omnipotent, then yes, It could create our reality instantly. And if a gradual process of change was part of the Creator’s plan, then all things would evolve as they fallowed God’s set path of change and cycles.
Though Islam and Judaism are both basically from the same culture, [if I’m not mistaken] atleast Islam believes in determinism/destiny. So, though the Xian version of ‘God’ may deny deterministic creation, the Muslim ‘God’ may not.
If the first cause was “perfect” and “complete”, then yes, no more work will need to be done.
A perfect Creator would not destroy his own artwork.
Morality and justice is basically speciesism. It is anthropocentric.
If the Creator didn’t like “evil”, ‘He’ would not have created it in the first place. And we both know this, but reality itself, when within the human mind, is under the mind’s control. As such, the mind will prefer one reality over and above another reality. Yes, insanity is a tool of the mind, a means towards satisfaction. Insanity is okay, as men do not want truth as much as they want result.
When the whole is greater then the sum of its parts:
When remembering an idea or an emotion, from someone else, which you wish to defeat, admit first that it is you, not they. Many parts of you are more dangerous then the obviously stupid ideas which you detest. As soon as you have it in memory, it is no-longer someone else's idea. It is an idea which you yourself created, by means of your absorbent awareness. Memories are never enemies. Do not consider all of the individual instances from your passed to be anything other then 'us', & 'we'. Little pieces of everything have been made in the form of information, to provide you with a deep pool of mental resource, and that pool is thyself.
Forces other then your own aversion will happen to sort out your many parts, once they are let free into a union. Do not make them better or worse, make them more conscious. In the mind, and understanding of both good and evil should be fully liberated and advanced, and this shall be a step towards self-completeness.
The whole is only greater then the sum of its parts, if the parts are not working against each other. Thus, total cessation of aversion towards what is inside of thyself. Not saying any part is good or bad, will lead to reunitedness. All parts will be considered separate, and will act as separate parts, if they believe: "You are good and you are bad." But, if they believe: "We am all now." they shall not make unnecessary divisions between the whole self. Thus, view all of your memories of the supposed "outer world" as parts of yourself, being neither 'good' nor 'bad', and not being anything other then the We, which is the self.
Unification becomes collective concentration. And concentration IS power. Most of them will not realize that when the whole becomes greater then the sum of its parts, during unity, the individual becomes greater then his entire life. Unity is the main, ni the only power life has. If each organ was taken out of the body and set down somewhere else, how powerless the body would be. During all "conquest", division is needed, as division weakens the whole enemy, and then the enemy is treated like an ore. (a composite which he wishes to digest and refine.)
Analytical thought is a digestive refinement process, which is like the conquest. It breaks apart information until it can find parts which it personally can use. Logic is the diet of the right-brain, but a stomach cannot digest a block of iron, and logic cannot digest all forms of magick. The left brain can often digest what the right brain cannot. And the skillful one can gain meaning, even from nonsense. Let the whole of information pass through the whole of the aware parts of thyself, for a wider digestion. And if thee are incapable of certain magick digestions, gain new body parts, and then try again.
Alright, here’s what I think. That which holds the most power, whether in or out of the universe, has the right to be called god. This means there can only be one.(unless it has an antiform) I believe this gives it the right to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Meaning it gets the right to control everything within its power. By definition, what ever it does is right and can never be wrong. Now this will seem a little shacky if you try to define something finite becuase it can easily contradict itself, but if that which holds the most power is infinite, if god is infinite, then he can contradict himself all he wants because there would be nothing equal to it to annihilate it. I don’t think there’s an anti-infinity. In a nutshell, god is supremely moral because his position as god gives him the right to define the law of morality and sin. If he didn’t punish and reward actions, or if he rewarded evil and punished good, he would still be god. If a dictator made it a crime to eat, he would still be dictator and if a person ate, he is guilty of breaking that law. That’s what i think anyway.
Now you’re talking about how people would deal with the existence of the “god”. They will only aim for the sexy gods who can potentially give them an afterlife or somethin’, I figure, and that’s when worship comes in.
So, the sexy gods who give a shit about earthlings get more attension and are called ‘god’ more often, but there can still be the unknown, I-don’t-give-a-shit ‘gods’ which are not called ‘gods’ because they are unseen but they are still ‘gods’ when compared to earthlings.
But from the perspective of a limited human being, those I-don’t-give-a-flying -fuck gods don’t exist because to exist from the perspective of a human is to have an effect on that human’s longterm survival. If something is invisible, odorless, intangible, tasteless, and silent it doesn’t exist until it kills me, got it?
— Is god supremely moral?
O- Moral like you and me? But God is not like men, thus it might be that God is moral but by any standards that we hold. God is omnipotent, so he dictates morality, so to say that he is moral is to place outside himself something that cannot exist appart from Him. God is. How moral or immoral is a valuation made by man. God is God, so that He is the source of both moral things and immoral things…because all appreciated from the finite mind and values of men. So that we avoid doing injustice to the Infinite we may say that God is moral and right after assert that He is not moral, because He trancends our conceptions of morality.
— If he didn’t punish and reward actions, or if he rewarded evil and punished good, would he still be god?
O- Yes, He would still be God. Can’t God show mercy? We’re subject to the judgment of God while God is not subject to our judgment. But I would advise that you read Job and see what I mean.
Doesn’t that just bring people farther away from a realistic understanding of higher powers?
This isn’t a petty game of proving faith.
If ‘God’ has desire of any sort, then ‘God’ is also incomplete, in a state of wanting. Throughout human history on earth, I see that it is men whome wish to control eachother, whilst all of the gods allow the madness to run its course. Men are incomplete, and often egoic, wanting others to conform to their own self somehow. The mortals wish to immortalize, through reproduction, an afterlife, assimilation, storage, memory, protection, repair, and so many other things.
Unless you can preform a miracle, here and now, I will not consider you, omar, to be God’s messenger. I consider you as an echo of an old dead man, whome had a portion of wine, paper, Jewish culture and a pen.
Many old men, actually. But that’s okay, all omar did was forget to read the replys, which resulted n his misunderstanding of the question. I do it all the time. All the time.
Not moral as in, does he drink alot. But moral as in, are his opinions and judgements on our actions central to his definition.
Your views are not those held by most of Christianity, as you place the importance of god on his ability to create. Once again, he’s just first cause, nothing more.
Just curious, but who decided that any understanding of God has any particular attributes? Saying “God is…” implies that someone actually knows. ??? Beyond pure speculation, who claims authority to know God?
For the thousandth time: Having a sense of, a personal experience of, is awareness. It doesn’t follow that one know’s anything.
—Job?
Bible?
Doesn’t that just bring people farther away from a realistic understanding of higher powers?
O- A realistic understanding of higher powers? That sounds like a contradiction of terms. Besides, there is no need to marginalize the things given to us in poems and parables. Bothe the priest and the scientist is giving you his account of what he believes; that is his own faith. Now it is one’s choice wether one accepts that or not.
— This isn’t a petty game of proving faith.
O- Read Hume. All is petty faith.
— If ‘God’ has desire of any sort, then ‘God’ is also incomplete, in a state of wanting.
O- I am not aiming for positive theology saying that God is X. That is arrogant. If God has desire, it cannot be supposed to be like our desires, which do come from a lack. It is a manner of speaking, if anything at all.
— Throughout human history on earth, I see that it is men whome wish to control eachother, whilst all of the gods allow the madness to run its course.
O- Have you seen gods?
— Unless you can preform a miracle, here and now, I will not consider you, omar, to be God’s messenger.
O- Have I told you that I am anyone’s or anything’s messenger? That is your idea and might reflect a state of being that is looking for such a messenger to appear to quicken you, perhaps. Albeit, it is not I. I am simply one presenting a very old instruction that might help someone stuck with all the perplexity and confusion of philosophy.
And by the way, your faith would be great indeed if a simple miracle would prove to you that anyone is His messenger.
— I consider you as an echo of an old dead man, whome had a portion of wine, paper, Jewish culture and a pen.
O- Correcto mundo!
