slavery

[Charlie V]

What's the point of asking a questiton with endless answers that you're not going to find?

It's not necessarily about finding all the answers, though you may find some of them. It's about the fun of the journey.

Do I have to have a roadmap and a destination to go out for a drive, just for the sake of learning and growing and having fun?

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

then this thread, which started "should I believe in god" clearly isn't the place for you.

Actually, this thread started "slavery." Besides, how can you answer "Should I believe in God?" if you don't have an answer to what God is?

Are you trying to get me to leave the thread? Why? I didn't intend to get you angry, and if I did, I'm very sorry.

But I've actually enjoyed being on this thread, I've enjoyed writing and reading and talking here! I sure feel like this is the place for me.

Though I don't feel that any powerful force is enslaving me to stay on this thread, or enslaving me to go from this thread, and I've chosen to be on this thread, I do think that my thoughts and past experiences probably have taken from me some of my free will on whether or not to be here.

I hope, at the very least, that you've gained something from reading my posts, although I'm certainly not intending to judge you, and any change in your life from this thread I hope is for the better.

Charlie

 

[quatona]

I'm arguing over whether believing in a judging god is the act of a slave.

Ok, that´s one question. Since it is not really the one we have been talking about in our most recent posts I will set it off for a moment, if you don´t mind.

Meanwhile, to show that a non-judgemental, morally correct god is the same as a dead god, I am assuming the existence of such a god to show that a morally correct god cannot change our lives in any way that is not an act of judgement.

Let´s take a very simple hypothetical example (sorry, theists, it´s not meant to represent your attitude, it´s just a simple hypothetical example):
Someone believes that his righteous, perfect god is all-loving, all-encompassing and all-appreciative. That gives him an all warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
That would count as a major influence this belief has on the person, in my book.

 

[exploring]

Theism = "the belief in a God, any God, or gods."



Perhaps we're defining both "relate" and "change" differently.

I'm walking through the park, and I encounter a man. He starts a conversation, and tells me how depressed he is, because he's recently lost his job.

I tell him, "I can really relate to that. I lost my job a few years ago, but I eventually found work. Don't dispair."

Did I change him? May be, may be not. Did he change me? May be, may be not. Let's go with the latter on both. He didn't change me, I didn't change him? Did I relate to him? Sure!



That last part ("no argument with you") leads me to believe, in that earlier post when I asked if you're challenging others beliefs or if you're intellectually curious, that you are, in fact, challenging others beliefs.

As for "argument with you," I've been trying to play the field for all theists, all believers in god-concepts. I'm not just talking for myself, but as a respecter of the vast variety of different ideas. If your argument is against the Buddhists -- then as a believer that it's okay to believe, my argument is with the Buddhists, even though I'm not Buddhist.

Not all people believe in an omnipotent and absolutely just God. However, to offer you a paradigm on a God which is all of the following: 1. Absolutely just, 2. All-powerful, 3. Not judging, may I suggest a book?

"The Inescapable Love of God," by Thomas Talbott. Thomas Talbott is a universalist (a believer of universal salvation, the idea that God loves all mankind and will bring everyone to heaven) who most certainly believes in an absolutely just and all-powerful God who does not judge.



Okay. Do you have a problem with changes that are beneficial to you?



Okay, this is yet another seperate and distinct "if" from everything you've said.

There's one school of thought that says that our actions do not have any particular moral value. That the world is an illusion -- a place where we play the good guys and the bad guys, where we children of the universe pretend to be nurses and doctors and fire fighters and drug addicts and bank robbers. And what we do really makes little difference -- what we percieve as reality isn't. And God doesn't care whether we play the cowboys or the indians in the game that we play.

So there's another school of thought we can weed out of this confusion. Okay, let's assume our actions have moral value.



Depends on what you mean by "judged." This time, for my analogy, I'm actually going to dive into religion.

Jesus, according to Christian tradition, died on the cross and said, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

This implies to me, non-judgement.

Let me give you an analogy.

Your toddler goes and pushes another toddler into a fire. The second toddler is burned horribly.

Did the action have moral value? Sure, it had very negative moral consequences. Should you judge your toddler? Well, you might. Some parents might scream at the toddler, spank the toddler. But if you are a good parent, you know that the toddler is a toddler, and did not know what he or she was doing.

So do you judge? Do you necessarily say, "Bad, bad two year old!" To a child who cannot even speak more than a few words let alone understand what he's done? Not necessarily, even though the action was a negative one.

Charlie

Perhaps we're defining both "relate" and "change" differently.

I'm walking through the park, and I encounter a man. He starts a conversation, and tells me how depressed he is, because he's recently lost his job.
I tell him, "I can really relate to that. I lost my job a few years ago, but I eventually found work. Don't dispair."
Did I change him? May be, may be not. Did he change me? May be, may be not. Let's go with the latter on both. He didn't change me, I didn't change him? Did I relate to him? Sure!

You're right: to me "change" means any change at all: the very perception of the man changed you. So now do you see what I mean? God cannot relate to you if he doesn't have even the slightest effect on you.

That last part ("no argument with you") leads me to believe, in that earlier post when I asked if you're challenging others beliefs or if you're intellectually curious, that you are, in fact, challenging others beliefs.

As for "argument with you," I've been trying to play the field for all theists, all believers in god-concepts. I'm not just talking for myself, but as a respecter of the vast variety of different ideas. If your argument is against the Buddhists -- then as a believer that it's okay to believe, my argument is with the Buddhists, even though I'm not Buddhist.

Not all people believe in an omnipotent and absolutely just God. However, to offer you a paradigm on a God which is all of the following: 1. Absolutely just, 2. All-powerful, 3. Not judging, may I suggest a book?

"The Inescapable Love of God," by Thomas Talbott. Thomas Talbott is a universalist (a believer of universal salvation, the idea that God loves all mankind and will bring everyone to heaven) who most certainly believes in an absolutely just and all-powerful God who does not judge.

My argument (yes) is with those who believe that an all powerful, non-judgemental god can change their life. What I said earlier was that I had no argument against those who believe that such a god doesn't change their lives. Please can you explain how a morally right, unjudging god can change our life?(change again being defined in the very loose sense I outlined earlier)

 

[Charlie V]

You're right: to me "change" means any change at all: the very perception of the man changed you. So now do you see what I mean? God cannot relate to you if he doesn't have even the slightest effect on you.

Well, I see people all the time. I'm pretty much basically still the same.

I can relate to something without the other person knowing it. I read a newspaper and read the story of the guy who lost his job. "I can relate to that." I related to him, and he didn't even know me, and I didn't change his life.

So, hypothetically, not meaning to suggest that any God exists that is like this though some might believe it, God could look down and say, "Wow, look at what that guy's going through. I can relate to that," and not actually change the person's life.

Relating and changing are two different things.

My argument (yes) is with those who believe that an all powerful, non-judgemental god can change their life.

My argument (yes) is with people who have arguments.

Okay.. just to be clear, you're not talking about the belief changing their life, but the actual being changing their life, right? Because you have flipped back and forth between those a couple of times.

I covered this. God makes flowers to make people happy. Completely benevolent, non-judgmental change of life.

What I said earlier was that I had no argument against those who believe that such a god doesn't change their lives. Please can you explain how a morally right, unjudging god can change our life?(change again being defined in the very loose sense I outlined earlier)

Create flowers. There's one way.

Charlie

 

[exploring]

I'll give a simple one, just for the sake of argument, to dispell this notion.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God made the flowers in front of my house bloom. Just to make my day a little happier.

He changed my life. Did he judge me? Are you actually saying that he judged me because he frowned upon my unhappiness and was angry at me for my lack of beautiful flowers blooming in front of my house? Do you know how absurd that sounds, to call the benevolent actions of a loving God, judgement?

I'm assuming, of course, only that there's a God and God made my flowers bloom.

Charlie

Sorry! you already had given an example! I'm working with a slight delay, please excuse that and my aggravated tone earlier. Do stay.

Now your example:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God made the flowers in front of my house bloom. Just to make my day a little happier.

He changed my life. Did he judge me? Are you actually saying that he judged me because he frowned upon my unhappiness and was angry at me for my lack of beautiful flowers blooming in front of my house? Do you know how absurd that sounds, to call the benevolent actions of a loving God, judgement?

I'm assuming, of course, only that there's a God and God made my flowers bloom.

In this case god would not be able to make the flowers bloom unless it was the right thing to do, since he is perfectly just. If you had been undeserving of flowers (in his eyes) he would not have given them. He was judging you worthy of receiving the flowers (judging can be positive as well as negative), not being angry at your unhappiness, though i guess you could also look at it that way. I'm not saying how god would judge, just that he would judge, unless judging were the wrong thing to do, which would itself be a form of judgement.

 

[Charlie V]

If you had been undeserving of flowers (in his eyes) he would not have given them.

Nonsense.

He didn't give me flowers because I'm deserving. He gave me flowers because he loves me.

Do you expect your loved ones to earn their flowers?

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

Nonsense.

He didn't give me flowers because I'm deserving. He gave me flowers because he loves me.

Do you expect your loved ones to earn their flowers?

Charlie

Actually.. no.

Not necessarily nonsense. It's hypothetically possible that there's a judging God who judges people and rewards them with flowers.

It's also hypothetically possible that God just loves, and loves, and loves. Loves the undeserving, loves the least deserving, and gives them flowers along the way.

I'm talking the second hypothetical.

And who's to say it's not the right thing to do to give undeserving people flowers?

Charlie

 

[exploring]

So, hypothetically, not meaning to suggest that any God exists that is like this though some might believe it, God could look down and say, "Wow, look at what that guy's going through. I can relate to that," and not actually change the person's life.

Ok i've been slightly unclear: you have to take into account the direction in which the relating takes place. God can relate to the guy because god is aware of the guy because the guy has changed god. If god cannot change th guy, then the guy cannot be aware of god, then the guy cannot relate to god. I thought that would be clear, but I am aware I used the term the other way around a few times. For that accept my most humble apologies

Okay.. just to be clear, you're not talking about the belief changing their life, but the actual being changing their life, right? Because you have flipped back and forth between those a couple of times.

Yes at the moment we are talking about what would be true if god existed. I don't know how the belief thing got mixed in.

 

[exploring]

Actually.. no.

Not necessarily nonsense. It's hypothetically possible that there's a judging God who judges people and rewards them with flowers.

It's also hypothetically possible that God just loves, and loves, and loves. Loves the undeserving, loves the least deserving, and gives them flowers along the way.

I'm talking the second hypothetical.

And who's to say it's not the right thing to do to give undeserving people flowers?

Charlie

OK yes its possible but i never said it wasn't. What I said was that it would be the same as a dead god. Which it would since our actions wouldn't change its actions.

 

[Charlie V]

Ok i've been slightly unclear: you have to take into account the direction in which the relating takes place. God can relate to the guy because god is aware of the guy because the guy has changed god. If god cannot change th guy, then the guy cannot be aware of god, then the guy cannot relate to god.

Defining "change" as "perception" I think is quite a stretch. While I don't know the actual numbers, I suspect that the eyes can percieve about a hundred billion things per second, and that's not counting what the ears, nose, toungue and skin can percieve. That's a whole lot of changing going on all the time!

I'm just not so loose with my definition of "change." I don't think relating is change -- but heck, by your definition everything is change. This discussion has changed me thousands of times because my fingers hit the keyboard at least that many times.

And by that definition.. heck, we can't even talk about a real God that doesn't change you because talking about it is a sign of perception and as soon as you've percieved it you've changed.

Yes at the moment we are talking about what would be true if god existed. I don't know how the belief thing got mixed in.

LOL.. that's another seperate thing!

There's a difference between:

1. God changing you.
2. Belief in God changing you.
3. God existing.

God could exist and not change you!
God could exist or not exist and belief could change you!

 

[Charlie V]

OK yes its possible but i never said it wasn't. What I said was that it would be the same as a dead god. Which it would since our actions wouldn't change its actions.

Wow, you define words in a different sort of way.

"Dead" means that our actions have to change their actions? Anything whose actions we do not change is dead?

That's not any definition of "dead" I've ever heard.

With your defining of words like "change" and "dead," it's a wonder we can communicate.. this is not intended as an insult, but English is your first language, right?

What I don't understand is this.. if God is dead how did he make the flowers?

Charlie

EDITED IN:

It seems to me, in all due respect, that you're making statements and then backing them up by wrapping your word-definitions around your statements.

A God who does not judge is dead.
Death is defined as not judging.

Indirectly, that's what you've said, though working your way there through the redefining words like "change."

Charlie

 

[exploring]

Defining "change" as "perception" I think is quite a stretch. While I don't know the actual numbers, I suspect that the eyes can percieve about a hundred billion things per second, and that's not counting what the ears, nose, toungue and skin can percieve. That's a whole lot of changing going on all the time!

I'm just not so loose with my definition of "change." I don't think relating is change -- but heck, by your definition everything is change. This discussion has changed me thousands of times because my fingers hit the keyboard at least that many times.

To make it easier, for "change", subsitute "has an effect upon"

And by that definition.. heck, we can't even talk about a real God that doesn't change you because talking about it is a sign of perception and as soon as you've percieved it you've changed.

If he has an effect upon you, even in the slightest way, then he is judging that you deserve that effect. If he doesn't judge you, then the change he does to you instead of to others must not be morally based, so god must not be absolutely just, or god must not change you. The only question is whethter being absolutely just means judging everyone on their moral value.

Keep in mind that judgement need not be negative. If I judge a murderer worthy of sunshine and flowers, that is still a judgement

LOL.. that's another seperate thing!

There's a difference between:

1. God changing you.
2. Belief in God changing you.
3. God existing.

God could exist and not change you!
God could exist or not exist and belief could change you!

Granted, but "god changing you" is surely a subcategory of "god existing". so all of what we're talikng about (god judging/not judging you) can be considered under the category "god existing"

 

[Charlie V]

To make it easier, for "change", subsitute "has an effect upon"

Same problem.. you think that everything we percieve has an affect on us, and we percieve a hundred billion things a second.

If he has an effect upon you, even in the slightest way, then he is judging that you deserve that effect.

Only if you define your words that way.

If you redefine all your words to fit what you say -- you win on everything, you're always right, you win, you win, you win. Because all your word-definitions will fit what you say to make what you say right by definition.

By my definitions of "effect" and "judge", and I dare say, the definitions of most English-speaking people, those are two different things. You can effect without judging; you can judge without effecting.

If he doesn't judge you, then the change he does to you instead of to others must not be morally based, so god must not be absolutely just, or god must not change you.

It depends. Since you keep redefining "change" and "judge," I'm not sure about your version of "just" or other words here.

It's hypothetically possible for God to be absolutely just and infinitely loving such as to give to all equally -- you assume that "he does to you instead of others." What if God does to everyone equally? What if it's our own blindness, our lack of perception, that makes us not see that.

One of many possibilities. However, it's not even hypothetically possible if you bend all the words around to make it impossible. You can make the possible impossible by defining "possible" as "impossible."

The only question is whethter being absolutely just means judging everyone on their moral value.

I don't think being just even requires judging.

Keep in mind that judgement need not be negative. If I judge a murderer worthy of sunshine and flowers, that is still a judgement

One can be just, recognize that a murderer is not worthy of sunshine and flowers, and give them sunshine and flowers anyway, because you recognize that they are in need of love, and of sunshine and flowers.

It's not about being worthy. It's about being in need. (Unless you redefine words to make me wrong, which you can always do.)

I give to charity. I feed the poor.
Do I do it because the poor did something really valuable and earned the food?
No. I do it because I care.
Does that make me unjust?
No. It makes me compassionate.

Charlie

 

[exploring]

Wow, you define words in a different sort of way.

"Dead" means that our actions have to change their actions? Anything whose actions we do not change is dead?

That's not any definition of "dead" I've ever heard.

With your defining of words like "change" and "dead," it's a wonder we can communicate.. this is not intended as an insult, but English is your first language, right?

What I don't understand is this.. if God is dead how did he make the flowers?

Charlie

EDITED IN:

It seems to me, in all due respect, that you're making statements and then backing them up by wrapping your word-definitions around your statements.

A God who does not judge is dead.
Death is defined as not judging.

Indirectly, that's what you've said, though working your way there through the redefining words like "change."

Charlie

) A god whose actions we cannot influence is often called a "dead" god among people I have spoken to. I thought this was an idiom most people recognised.

To define change as "has an effect on" is no great leap. To define judge as "change depending on moral value" likewise.

now, I think that we have established that people who believe in a non-judging god are either 1.inconsistent or 2. exempt from being slaves. Shall we assume 2. and continue to discuss the slave issue?

 

[quatona]

now, I think that we have established that people who believe in a non-judging god are either 1.inconsistent or 2. exempt from being slaves.

No, we haven´t established that at all.

 

[exploring]

No, we haven´t established that at all.

why not: all I have been saying is that a certain type of belief in non-judging god is inconsistent. Either they are inconsistent or they are not.
If the ones we are talking about are not inconsistent, then they are not slaves in this respect, since in this respect they do not find excuses for their actions by blaming outside things. I am happy to move on from talking about which partcular non-judging god believers are inconsistent, since we seem to have reached a semantic barrier

 

[Charlie V]

) A god whose actions we cannot influence is often called a "dead" god among people I have spoken to. I thought this was an idiom most people recognised.

Well, then. I disagree with those people.

To me, a dead God is one which has fallen and his body has started to decompose, being eaten by maggots and worms.

Does a dead God go to heaven?

To define change as "has an effect on" is no great leap.

No, it's not. It's the exact same thing.

To say everything we percieve changes us (or has an effect on us) is the great leap. We'd be changing a billion times a second.

To define judge as "change depending on moral value" likewise.

You're playing word games.

It reminds me of a game I used to play with some co-workers. We'd take a word, and look it up in the thesauris. Then look up one of those words, then look up one of those words. By the end, we'd have a word with completely different meaning than the original word.

It's like the old joke.

God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

You can play with word definitions and prove anything true.

You've created a scenerio where, by definition, God is judgemental or dead. Therefore, everything you've said is true because you've defined all your words to make it so. Define your words a little differently, however, and don't jump to all the conclusions you have based on those definitions, and your arguments are a house of cards.

now, I think that we have established that people who believe in a non-judging god are either 1.inconsistent or 2. exempt from being slaves. Shall we assume 2. and continue to discuss the slave issue

I'm not sure how we got here.. but..

That's true only if we define "inconsistancy" with "the belief in a non-judging God."

And, I demonstrated earlier, depending on how you define the "slave" thing we can ALL be slaves or NONE of us are slaves.

Heck, we ALL make choices.
NONE of us can fly like Superman. Or control our genetics/environment/past experiences.

We're all slave to the non-flying like Superman. And to our genetics/environment/past experiences.

None of us are incapable of making choices, except those of us who are dead or in comas.

Some of us are insane, regardless of religous belief, they are capable of making choices albeit not rational ones. Is someone who thinks they are Napolean, free?

Charlie

 

[exploring]

No, it's not. It's the exact same thing.

To say everything we percieve changes us (or has an effect on us) is the great leap. We'd be changing a billion times a second.

Yes

You're playing word games.

It reminds me of a game I used to play with some co-workers. We'd take a word, and look it up in the thesauris. Then look up one of those words, then look up one of those words. By the end, we'd have a word with completely different meaning than the original word.

It's like the old joke.

God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.

The process of reasoning is nothing more than finding things that are the same. In the example above "blind" has been used to mean two different things, resulting in invalid reasoning

You can play with word definitions and prove anything true.

You've created a scenerio where, by definition, God is judgemental or dead. Therefore, everything you've said is true because you've defined all your words to make it so. Define your words a little differently, however, and don't jump to all the conclusions you have based on those definitions, and your arguments are a house of cards.

The important thing is not what meanings we use but whether we use them consistently.

I'm not sure how we got here.. but..

That's true only if we define "inconsistancy" with "the belief in a non-judging God."

I have already excluded those who believe in certain types of no-judging god from the charge of inconsistency, and for the sake of argument I am now excluding all of them.

And, I demonstrated earlier, depending on how you define the "slave" thing we can ALL be slaves or NONE of us are slaves.

Heck, we ALL make choices.
NONE of us can fly like Superman. Or control our genetics/environment/past experiences.

We're all slave to the non-flying like Superman. And to our genetics/environment/past experiences.

None of us are incapable of making choices, except those of us who are dead or in comas.

Some of us are insane, regardless of religous belief, they are capable of making choices albeit not rational ones. Is someone who thinks they are Napolean, free?

Charlie

my definition of slave is "someone who makes exuses for their actions by blaming outside factors." Example: "I only killed you because I thought god would judge me badly if I didn't." That person has enslaved themself to the outside concept of god's judgement. Now that we are clear on that point, lets run with it.

 

[Emmy]

Dear exploring, before I became a Christian, I was a slave to many things, I was fearful, shy, easily hurt, lacked confidence, was a nonentity, to give just an idea, what a little mouse I was. After my children had become adult, I seeked for more meaning in my life, and " Praise be to God," Jesus found me. He freed me from all sorts of fear, He taught me to love and care, He gave me His Joy and Peace, and now I feel, " With God on my side, who can be against me?" I became a soldier of Christ,( joined the Salvation Army) and feel wonderfully FREE and loved and protected. Life has not become without its sadness, or setbacks, but I thank the Lord to be allowed o live for Him, and be His devoted Slave. ( Follower) I say this humbly and lovingly, and send greetings, exploring. Emmy, sister in Christ.