God Qualities

[Jane_the_Bane]

G-d gave a great gift that is also a great curse. It’s called free will. He also gave us instructions on being righteous. Because of free will each individual has the ability to choose good or evil behavior. It is humans who can be good or evil.

"Free will" is an oxymoron, and not at all a justification for the existence of evil (or God's non-interference).
Did he not interfere with people's free will when he ordered the execution of the Israelite who had gathered kindle wood on a sabbath day? Did he not interfere with free will when he murdered thousands for the crimes of King David? Did he not interfere when he slew the poor guy who reflexively touched the ark of the covenant when it was about to topple to the ground?
Also, these supposed "instruction on being righteous" include such gems as: "if you beat your slave severely, but he's able to stand on his own before three days have passed, you have done nothing wrong" or "let the rapist marry his victim, because damaged goods don't sell (unless she didn't struggle - in that case, stone the slattern to death)".

 

[Robban]

To me the story of the sacrifice of Abraham's son was offered at a time when human sacrifice was not uncommon. In the case of Abraham it was never carried out as there was a Divine intervention. But consider the Qur'anic version of the story:

The Qur'an also refers to the sacrifice of Abraham..and it is a different account from that mentioned in the Bible..It's found in Surih As-Saffat 37:100-105. In this case after Abraham relates a vision He had to His son they concurrently agree...

Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
37:103

So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

The above is a translation by A. Yusuf Ali ... a widely read translation.

Now consider the Genesis account...in chapter 22

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.”

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

Two things are fairly clear from the above verses.. "Take your son your only son whom you love - Isaac-.." Ishmael was the first child of Abraham by several years...before Isaac was born. There's an inconsistency there you'll note.

The other issue is that in the Genesis account the child is unaware of what is to occur..that is, his being sacrificed... while the Qur'an indicates a concurrence between Abraham and His son.

Ishmael,s mother was Hagar, an Egyptian princess who became Sarah,s housemaid.

When Sarah was 90 she gave birth to Isaac the son promised
she would have, though barren her whole life.

On hearing of the incedent Sarah had a heartattack and died at the age of 127, making Isaac 37 at the time.

Abraham had preached to everyone for a hundred years that child sacrifice
was wrong.

So it was a test, the tenth and final.

However, in and with his obedience it is considered he completed the
test, thereof the sounding of the shofar, for among other things, repentence.

Besides Hagar and Ishmael were sent away, not that Abraham wished it so
but he had been told by G-d to do all what Sarah told him to do.

 

[dlamberth]

I can agree, but I would also see that all that needs a perspective, as to understand how it is talking to us. I see the essence of creation comes unto being through the Word, thus we must know what is being said.

The way I take it is that the Word, animated by Creation itSelf is not being listened to. It's speaking loudly, but only a few have ears to hear. It's a missed opportunity for Humanity.

I see that Word is Gods Messengers, thus if we want to undersand all of this, it is to them we must look.

From another perspective. We are entirely part of this world. Because by virtue of our own bodily denseness and activity, we are wholly embedded in the depths of the Living Earth. We can feel the tangible textures, sounds and shapes of the biosphere because we are tangible, resonant, audible shapes in our own right. We are born of the Earth's waters, soil, air and sunlight. We are nourished and sustained by the breathing Earth, we are flesh of it's flesh.

So my question is this, when does the Earth become recognized and listened to as a Messenger of God?

Much like knowing all life exists because of the relationship between and the proximity of Sun to the earth, which is in a perfect balance for life to exist.

It's not only the proximity to the sun but it's becoming clear that the biosphere itself has much to do in maintaining the perfect balance for life to exist. "If" one were to listen to the Word as spoken through the Earth, I have no doubt that we would be treating her a whole lot better than we are now.

 

[brinny]

Inspired by another thread, I thought it might be interesting to ask, "What qualities make a god good or evil?"

(And if anyone says "loving", I'll ask you to explain exactly what that means in detail.)

The word "Creator" comes to mind. Also John 3:16. A God Who would lay down His life (through His only begotten Son) is Good. As wicked as i've been, and He "forgives" me?

Now THAT'S a Good God.

Hi awitch. Long time no speak. 'Tis good to communicate with you again.

Great, thought-provoking thread. Thank you for posting it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, I already said it. True God is good no matter what. He is the sovereign authority and his wisdom is perfect.

I feel like this probably makes sense within a broadly Calvinistic approach; it's not one that would make much sense for me as a Lutheran.

The starting point for knowing God isn't in God's naked glory, where He cannot, in fact, be known; but is only in God clothed in the perfect humility of Christ.

As such a god that is fundamentally not like Jesus can't be god at all. At least from the perspective of the Theologia Crucis, the Theology of the Cross.

Luther writes that merely acknowledging the invisible qualities of God, even God's virtue and goodness, does not make one a true theologian. It is rather to comprehend God revealed and manifest in the suffering and cross of Jesus that makes one a true theologian.

Who and what is God? I do not know who and what God is in the bare naked divinity and glory of the Eternal Other. But I do know who and what God is when I look upon the Jesus who freely and lovingly gave Himself away by giving up His life to humility, shame, death, and cross.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carbon]

1. Rapid self-improvement. Morality is just a fancy term for deciding what you should do next given a certain goal, recursively. Recursively meaning, the method of reaching your goals and the goals themselves should be subject to criticism over time. Given everyone is fallible any god worth the name would be constantly battle-testing different goal orientations, keeping what works and trimming the fat as needed. Morality is a process not a rule book. Any rules (virtue ethics) that cluster up along the way are more like rules of thumb, useful though imperfect shortcuts.

Believing yourself to be infallible and thus incapable of changing for the better is, far from being a prerequisite of godhood, the first childish phase out of which any would-be god must grow up.

2. Strategic non-improvement. Often overlooked but just a critical as self-improvement is not improving. Here I part with the absolutist varieties of business process theory and maturity models preaching "continuous improvement". A god/business/person/whatever has to get good at strategically *not* improving. Some improvements require as-yet-unreached level-ups or more information or skills, or are just not worth the cost or effort. In the project management and software development worlds, this is the gold-plating vs. the "done is better than perfect" ethic.

Being a god means getting good at both improving and not improving, again all in the service of whatever goals the god happens to have.

 

[Noxot]

For it to be good according to my judgment it must love me and treat me as an equal.

 

[Noxot]

How invested in us could an omnimax being actually be? I'm not sure i could come up with an analogy about how small we would be if such a being existed.

An Omnimax being can take infinite interest in me. It can infinitely invest in me. It can find infinite value in me.

 

[Carbon]

Historically people oscillate between attributing values to our gods, vs. attributing gods to our values. I suspect religions always begin with the former, evolving much like languages, businesses, etc., by a kind of artificial and natural selection. Taste-makers kick things off creating new goals and values for their community, then deify those values in the form of gods. Over time the pendulum swings back. The gods as created by the forerunners take on a life of their own. No longer an embodiment of the original values but the definition of value itself.

Until some upstart comes along and Reform(ation)s the religion down a new path. A clever reformer tightropes their way to changing the god in ways that don't really change anything, but rather "fix" the "previously" wrong interpretation restoring the true god-values to what they always never weren't.

What I wonder is, instead of worshiping a so-called "unchanging" god, are humans capable of worshiping a self-consciously imperfect but always improving and evolving god?

 

[DamianWarS]

Inspired by another thread, I thought it might be interesting to ask, "What qualities make a god good or evil?"

(And if anyone says "loving", I'll ask you to explain exactly what that means in detail.)

If God exists than good and evil are defined through him, not the other way around. Everything for him is good and everything against him is evil. If all things are created by him then they are created for him and our capacity for emotion, thought, and even to sense things are for him not against him. This isn't to say these things can be used against God, but we have innate characteristics that allow us to give glory to God in a way that can be defined "good" because they are defined by him for him.

 

[dlamberth]

If God exists than good and evil are defined through him, not the other way around. Everything for him is good and everything against him is evil.

Honestly, I completely reject the idea that it is God who defines what is good and evil. What is good and evil is defined by us. We can see this over time by the different cultural images of what is good and evil. Even with in the Christian community the ideas of what is good and what is evil has changed and evolved over time and cultures.

But the other point made I have to ask: What does it mean to be for God? And what does it mean to be against God? That in itself is subjective as we see even within the various Christian communities the different meanings. In my world the desecration we have done to this Sacred Earth is a direct abomination against God. Sadly, from my experience that's not a widely held belief among those in the Christian world.

 

[DamianWarS]

Honestly, I completely reject the idea that it is God who defines what is good and evil. What is good and evil is defined by us. We can see this over time by the different cultural images of what is good and evil. Even with in the Christian community the ideas of what is good and what is evil has changed and evolved over time and cultures.

But the other point made I have to ask: What does it mean to be for God? And what does it mean to be against God? That in itself is subjective as we see even within the various Christian communities the different meanings. In my world the desecration we have done to this Sacred Earth is a direct abomination against God. Sadly, from my experience that's not a widely held belief among those in the Christian world.

It can be covenantal, it can be cultural and it can be universal. (We often are blinded by the cultural)

For example Christ tells us the greatest commandant is to love God with all your soul, heart and mind and the 2nd to love your Neighbour as yourself. Well the 2nd does not violate the first so the 2nd is still defined through the first. By loving we can love God and by hating we can hate God. If I walk into a building that only wears pink and knowing this I wear blue this is an act of unlove and violates both of these commandments.

If you want to be more clear on what is for God and what is against God you will have to ask him.

 

[dlamberth]

If you want to be more clear on what is for God and what is against God you will have to ask him.

Which goes back to my point, it's subjective in nature.

 

[DamianWarS]

Which goes back to my point, it's subjective in nature.

God is not subjective.

 

[dlamberth]

God is not subjective.

I have to disagree. God is not an object that can be pointed at. God is very much a subjective experience that changes from person to person and even from culture to culture. The image of God from the time of Jesus, which was completely Jewish in nature, is not the same as today's Christian image of God. I think there is a lot of truth when some say that there are as many different images of God as there are Human Beings.

And when doing as you suggested of asking God about something, the answer will always be subjective. What is clear to you for a reply may be a completely different than the reply I receive.

I'm coming back to this to add that an understanding of a Subjective perception of God makes God much more alive and vibrant as an "experience". Which I understand might make it harder to put God into a box as is the want of what is my opinion is way too many.

 

[dlamberth]

It can be covenantal, it can be cultural and it can be universal. (We often are blinded by the cultural)

For example Christ tells us the greatest commandant is to love God with all your soul, heart and mind and the 2nd to love your Neighbour as yourself. Well the 2nd does not violate the first so the 2nd is still defined through the first. By loving we can love God and by hating we can hate God. If I walk into a building that only wears pink and knowing this I wear blue this is an act of unlove and violates both of these commandments.

I really like this. The only part I look at differently is the hating God part. I changed a few of those words to what I underlined here: By loving we can love God and by hating we are hating ourselves. I know that there are examples of someone's life really crashing down hard where they take it out on God, but it's really themselves they are taking it out on. And as I look around, we Humans seem pretty darn good at hating ourselves. For the most part though, I don't think it's possible, really, to hate God. But I do know that we all can Love. And that's what I take as the most important part of your post that I'm replying to.

 

[DamianWarS]

I have to disagree. God is not an object that can be pointed at. God is very much a subjective experience that changes from person to person and even from culture to culture. The image of God from the time of Jesus, which was completely Jewish in nature, is not the same as today's Christian image of God. I think there is a lot of truth when some say that there are as many different images of God as there are Human Beings.

And when doing as you suggested of asking God about something, the answer will always be subjective. What is clear to you for a reply may be a completely different than the reply I receive.

I'm coming back to this to add that an understanding of a Subjective perception of God makes God much more alive and vibrant as an "experience". Which I understand might make it harder to put God into a box as is the want of what is my opinion is way too many.

the perception and experience of God can be called subjective but God is not subjective.

we've all heard of the blind men and an elephant. one man describes a snake as he feels its trunk, one a flat fan as he feels its ear, one a tree trunk as he feels its leg, one a rope as he feels its tail and the other a wall as he feels its body. they all describe the same unchanging elephant (practically speaking) but each describes only what they experience in their limits.

God is unchanging and if we were changing he would cease to be God. if we say good and evil are also absolutes then it would be God who defines them as he would be the only one with the credentials to define them. If we are to say good and evil are subjective, then just as God, they cease to exist (they are just things we call good and evil)

 

[Noxot]

If God is infinite then it is hard to describe him by things that are finite such as the elephant.

Humans are subjective and said to be made in God's image. As far as I know rocks don't have communion with God but subjective humans do.

people tend to look for the truth as an authority outside of themselves. It is a little bit far away from home for me. I don't seek to abide by the metaphysical assumption about certain kinds of authorities and especially not with truth being outside myself.

The inescapable truth is that I decide what truth is and what Authority is, and it makes sense as I seem to share something very important with God. This is partially what it means to be a microcosm and a microtheos.

I admit that God is no micro because that would be theft. God is no thief but like I myself he can speak for himself.

 

[Noxot]

I suppose it is extremely hard for creatures to escape from the idea of authority since they are weak and limited. It doesn't matter how plain or how hidden something is if the truth is dependent on something inside of you.

I'm not subject to law or symbols, they're not my masters, they are my servants, my subjects. The servant does not abide in the house forever but the son, he abides forever.

 

[dlamberth]

the perception and experience of God can be called subjective but God is not subjective.

Ok. What would you point to of God that is not subjective?

God is unchanging and if we were changing he would cease to be God.

I look at how consciousness has evolved and that makes me wonder about God also evolving. But than I look at the Life Force of God that's inherent in Nature and that extends even to the Cosmos and see a pattern of unlimited creativity that changes only in the form expressed over time. So I can't sit here and say that God does not change. And I ask myself, if God can not change, wouldn't that be a limited God?

if we say good and evil are also absolutes...

Between you and I, you've been the only one saying that sort of thing.

...then it would be God who defines them as he would be the only one with the credentials to define them. If we are to say good and evil are subjective, then just as God, they cease to exist (they are just things we call good and evil)

Being subjective has nothing to do with God existing or not. The the scent of a flower is subjective, yet it exists. Even the Love Mary has for Jesus is subjective, yet it exists. And God can be something other than an object and still exist.