Since the supposed god decided to not interact with us face to face, i judge it by it’s supposed creation instead of the PR bs other humans wrote about him.
I look at this universe and i see an engineering marvel of balance and all rules bending back onto themselves in a perpetual singularity.
This universe is perfection from an engineering standpoint.
From an ethical, moral, loving, caring standpoint however, its nil.
We live in a reality that is dictated by natural selection, survival, fitness and a hundred billion ways of death and suffering.
Unless suffering too is a blessing of god, unless you take pain and death as something positive, this reality is nothing more than a nightmare created at best for the purpose of purgatory and endlessly blending something down until you get some kind of end result to a question.
It resembles more a petridis or experiment than anything resembling love or care.
We only have “they” to indicate gender-neutral personhood, and that very recently.
I haven’t heard of That. People usually refer to They, when Catholics/Christian, etc. are referring to the Blessed Trinity, 3 Persons in One God.
God, the first Person Is still referred to as He or God the Father. That designation is so so deeply engrained within the minds/spirits/souls of people that it will take constant self-awareness and mindfulness to eventually drop the Father part and many would not/will not even want to…but that’s just the way I view it.
My question is: In what way can it benefit people to stop thinking that way --as God as a Father?We might tone it down a little and simply call God Creator. That’s a word that works for me.
you were talking about how I supposedly assumed or guessed another’s intentions and that this had happened in the past.
I asked, so when ‘was’ I assuming and guessing ‘another’s intentions’ (in the past)?
Do you think or believe that it is right or good to claim that I have done something ‘in the past’, but when I say I do not recall ‘doing that’ and ask for clarification, you respond with what you have here?
Why does it not matter to ‘you’, ‘now’?
To me, if someone accuses another of doing something ‘in the past’, and when asked ‘for clarification’, they say something like, “it does not matter if it is now, in the past, or in the future”, and/or “I’ll let sleeping dogs lie”, instead of just clarifying ‘when, in the past’, the said claim and accusation happened, is a very important thing and does matter.
Otherwise, if someone says, “it does not matter when or if it happened or will”, after they accuse another of having done something ‘in the past’, then they can just keep making accusations and claims, without ever having to justify their accussations and claims.
Okay, this appears to be another example of ‘trying to’ deflect and detract away from ‘justifying’ the claim and accusation made.
Which is a very ‘handy’ thing to say and claim when one does not want to follow through with the claim of something that supposedly happened ‘in the past’.
Further deceptive tactics?
Which is again convenient, considering ‘the claim and accusation’ made was about ‘what happened in the past’.
Again, another ‘convenient claim’ when one is ‘trying to’ deflect, detract, and/or deceive.
What do you mean by ‘decided to not interact with you face to face’?
What do you think is looking back at you when you look at and observe the Universe, It Self?
If ‘you’ think or believe that God is still a “him”, then this is WHY ‘you’ cannot and do not see God for what It really is.
I agree.
But what has what you adult human beings think and do, or do not think and do not do, got to do with God, It Self? Anything ethical, moral, loving, or caring standpoint has to do with what you human beings think and do.
And how many ways of birth and comfort, joy, and peace as well?
‘you’ suffer more in thought than ‘you’ do in Reality.
Children suffer far more from adults misbehavior than they do from anything else, and the only ‘suffering’ a fully ‘grown up’ and mature adult human being with might be some physical pain.
Now, ‘you’ wrote ‘death’ as though that in and of itself is something to fear and so ‘suffer’ with knowing about. Also, just because something is not taken as ‘positive’ never necessarily means that it has to be accepted as ‘a suffering’.
Once more, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to ‘the observer’.
If this is how ‘you’ have chosen to ‘look at’ and ‘see’ things, and so why ‘you’ never love nor care ‘for others’, then okay.
Yes, obviously. We determined that if you declare someone’s intentions without first clarifying their intentions with that person, I can remind you that this is merely assuming/guessing, something you prefer to avoid. That’s a nice step forward. If it happens, it happens. If not, not. The past does not matter. We know you are not upset about the past, and there is a plan in place.
Il Nulla wrote this post, and the divinely inspired anew wrote a post that included these two gems of wisdom in response to someone about whom one can say is likely to be suffering.
[my bold] - The bolded portion applies to Il Nulla, given that he is an adult. Children suffer - no citation marks. Adults? The only ‘suffering’ - this gets citation marks - adults might suffer is some physical pain. Any adults thinking they are suffering anything other than ‘some’ physical pain are confused. Note the ‘might’.
And after anew has explained away any possible emotional pain Il Nulla might have, he tells him he will never love or care for others.
Here we have a certain kind of enlightenment in a nutshell. The empathy and insight are so powerful and deep..
Okay. Great. “greenfuse” believes that when it dismisses a question asked for clarification and responds with, “Let sleeping dogs lie”, instead, that this is right or good.
Here is ANOTHER example of how often this one will ‘trying to’ deflect, detract away from, and deceive ‘you’ readers here.
‘We’ KNOW that ‘I’ have been referring to “greenfuse’s” claim that I had done something ‘in the past’. End of story.
‘We’ also KNOW that if and when people make claims, or accusations about others, what the best, good, and Right thing to do in Life, is to back up and support those claims and/or accusations.
Why did ‘you’ NOT answer the question posed and asked to you, here?
Now, once again, what ‘we’ can clearly see here is another attempt to break ‘my words’ up so that what I actually said and meant cannot be seen, and then pretend that what I said and meant is in the only bit quote of my words.
Also, what was claimed was that ‘this reality’ resembles more a petridis (petri dish?) or experiment than ‘anything’ resembling love or care, which could be inferred as if there is ‘nothing’ resembling love or care and “il_nulla” is a part of ‘this reality’, then they also could NOT be doing ‘anything’ resembling love or care.
Once again, ‘this one’ has NO idea NOR clue HOW citation marks are used here. Although I have specifically explained on numerous occasions already.
As ALREADY EXPLAINED to “icthus77”, “il_nulla” was ‘the one’ who talked about ‘this reality’. Either “il_nulla” belongs in ‘this reality’ or it does NOT, OBVIOUSLY.
And when others delve down deep enough, also, then WHY they are ‘this way’ and as well as ‘irrefutable’ will also be grasped, understood, and known, too.
Creation is a canvas.
The painted character is no more aware of the painter than i am of a god.
Either it comes here, inside the canvas and introduces himself, or for all intents and purposes he is nothing more than a fantasy.
While i value the story of Jesus greatly, its a story. Written by man. Handed down by man. Spread by man. Abused by man. Exploited by man.
At best, its hearsay.
At worst, its fiction.
We are capable of doing so because we are abstract thinkers.
If we look ONLY at reality, then ethics, morals, loving and caring are not something that are universal concepts. Nothing in this reality gives a single damn whether you live or die.
99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct.
Does that spell love, ethics, morals and caring in your book? It doesnt in mine unless i look at the concept of perfection from an engineering standpoint instead of a pragmatic one.
That right there is an abstraction about the sort of Being we are, but it is grounded in the concrete (our presence as persons within the presence of original personhood) and could not have been made without that fact.
Action (for example the act of thinking) is an abstraction from (within) Being.
Quality (“sort”) is an abstraction from both Being and Action.
…but they are mutually (which is not limited to the number two) implicating.
You cannot have one without all three, and you cannot have any of the three unless they are all one.
unless…
Imagine everything can be restored without being eaten by a dinosaur… or would that be a loving way to die, in your book?
Lets just straighten this problem out and make it as direct as possible.
Lets go with the ancient greek framework for what love means. A short list:
• Eros: Sexual and passionate romantic love.
• Philia: Deep, trusted friendship and mutual respect.
• Storge: Natural, protective love between family members.
• Agape: Unconditional, selfless, and universal love for all people.
• Ludus: Playful, casual, and flirtatious love.
• Pragma: Enduring, practical love built on duty and long-term commitment.
• Philautia: Healthy self-love and self-compassion.
• Mania: Obsessive, anxious, and jealous love
Which of these do you suppose applies to the creation of this universe?
If i loved my creations, by any of the branches of love and care in existence, i would not have created this universe for them.
You can call this universe a purgatory, a place of learning, a filtering mechanism, a testing ground… you can call it a plethora of things.
But if love was a purpose of this universe, then it would not be looking, acting and functioning the way it does. 8 definitions for the concept of love, and none of them would result in the creation of this universe. That is all i am saying.
You can make the argument that love is part of this universe.
It exists. That is undeniable.
We would not be talking about it if it didnt.
But is it based on that? Do you think that in this dog eat dog world full of the most creative and painful ways to expire… LOVE of all things laid the fundation for the mechanics and functions?
Forgive me… but i am very sceptical about that.
As i am about the nature of the creator, should one actually exist.
This being the love that subsumes and orders all the others (I am not fact-checking that list), what sort of universe would you have imagined other than this one?
I think it would be interesting (for both of us) to more fully learn about what “agape” means if you are “skeptical” (inquiring or reflective) about the nature of Creator. For example, I was just seeing if your definition was complete when I happened upon: https://www.etymonline.com/word/agape
which linked to me to this:
It was so weird how the last link mentioned marital infidelity, but if it’s only infidelity in the wrong context, then in actuality, it is the fullness of fidelity.
So you’ve basically encountered (or created) part of the universe that was hard for you/others and generalized it to the whole reality (for which you are not responsible). From a trauma perspective (including ego defense) that makes total sense. From a logic perspective it’s a fallacy.
Correct. That is the highest form of love in that list.
And how does it fit onto our reality where you (just in order to extend your own existence by a handful of meager hours) need to exploit and murder other living being and eat their corpse?
A reality in which the thing that stands between life and your entire planet’s extinction, is a game of pure chance, of no flying rocks, gamma bursts or sun flares coming this way?
If i actually loved my creations?
One that is unconditional, selfless, and is of universal love
Where suffering, murder and death are not part of the equation on a second by second basis.
We have no proof or knowledge of any other part of this universe that would not function in the exact same manner it does here.
Claiming that the laws of physics, math, chemistry and the rest of natural sciences are not consistent across the universe is like saying that gravity does not apply to every part of the earth or to all human beings.
Is it impossible?
No.
But it’s one extremely extraordinary claim that wont allow you to turn this argument around and call it a trauma response. If anything, assuming, hoping, thinking such extraordinary things is what sounds more like a trauma response.
The inability to contend with what reality looks like, and creating higher purposes, higher forms of ideas and ideologies, theism and even god, just to escape reality.
Wouldnt you say that this dream world would also be a trauma response?
And without the burden of proof being fulfilled, that too makes total sense form a trauma perspective, but from a logical one, it too is a fallacy.