Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.
Moderator:Metacrock
-
Jim B. - Posts:1445
- Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am
Re: God and smallpox
Post
by Jim B. » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:22 pm
met wrote:
What if, as is claimed in Buddhism, "suffering" is always caused by misplaced human desire? Ie, in an x-ian context, by our desire to be "more" than we were created to be?
What about all the non-human suffering? Have non-humans misplaced their desire? There are probably kinds of suffering that are unique to humans, having to do with self-consciousness and ego and the rest, that the Buddhist approach could address. But I think there is a base level of suffering that might be implicit in awareness.
Is this conception of God "moral" or "immoral"?
Right. In that sense, God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories. Like, is it "moral" to create beings capable of being "moral"? If God's the ground of morality, etc?... But in his energies, his immanence within the world, those categories become more applicable. To posit this meta-moral dimension of God is different from saying that God could be positively malevolent or indifferent to suffering.
Last edited by
Jim B. on Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
The Pixie - Posts:852
- Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm
Post
by The Pixie » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:38 pm
Jim B. wrote:Right. In that sense, God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories. Like, is it "moral" to create beings capable of being "moral"? If God's the ground of morality, ... But in his energies, his immanence within the world, those categories become more applicable. But to posit this meta-moral dimension of God is different than saying that God could be positively malevolent or indifferent to suffering.
If God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories, in what sense can he be called omnibenevolent?
-
Jim B. - Posts:1445
- Joined:Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am
Post
by Jim B. » Tue Sep 27, 2016 12:59 pm
The Pixie wrote:Jim B. wrote:Right. In that sense, God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories. Like, is it "moral" to create beings capable of being "moral"? If God's the ground of morality, ... But in his energies, his immanence within the world, those categories become more applicable. But to posit this meta-moral dimension of God is different than saying that God could be positively malevolent or indifferent to suffering.
If God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories, in what sense can he be called omnibenevolent?
In the same sense that he's personal. He's not limited in his essence to omnibenevolence but doesn't fall short of that quality. Ie he would not ever be malevolent or indifferent to suffering. As I said earlier, the POE addresses God in his immanence within the world.
-
met
- Posts:2813
- Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Post
by met » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:03 pm
The Pixie wrote:Jim B. wrote:Right. In that sense, God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories. Like, is it "moral" to create beings capable of being "moral"? If God's the ground of morality, ... But in his energies, his immanence within the world, those categories become more applicable. But to posit this meta-moral dimension of God is different than saying that God could be positively malevolent or indifferent to suffering.
If God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories, in what sense can he be called omnibenevolent?
I tend to think what people mean by "God is good" is there's some sense of a particular giftedness to existence that ultimately overwhelms - as well as being the source of - its griefs and/or frustrations and might even overcome our rational assessments of its futility. The problem is ...that can't be made a rational concept; its supra-rational, at best.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
-
met
- Posts:2813
- Joined:Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm
Post
by met » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:01 pm
What about all the non-human suffering? Have non-humans misplaced their desire? There are probably kinds of suffering that are unique to humans, having to do with self-consciousness and ego and the rest, that the Buddhist approach could address. But I think there is a base level of suffering that might be implicit in awareness.
I don't like to assume things about the perceptions of other species, but if we humans are the only ones with a sense of being-towards-death, of finiteness and futility, then maybe we're also the only ones whose desires can properly be called misplaced?
We, as self-aware beings, enter into relationships knowing they will end - so, in that sense, "to love is to lose" (as they say) -and which, of course, was also what I meant above when I audaciously claimed love WAS "needless suffering" !
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
-
The Pixie - Posts:852
- Joined:Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm
Post
by The Pixie » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:39 am
Jim B. wrote:The Pixie wrote:Jim B. wrote:Right. In that sense, God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories. Like, is it "moral" to create beings capable of being "moral"? If God's the ground of morality, ... But in his energies, his immanence within the world, those categories become more applicable. But to posit this meta-moral dimension of God is different than saying that God could be positively malevolent or indifferent to suffering.
If God is beyond what we humans think of in moral categories, in what sense can he be called omnibenevolent?
In the same sense that he's personal. He's not limited in his essence to omnibenevolence but doesn't fall short of that quality. Ie he would not ever be malevolent or indifferent to suffering. As I said earlier, the POE addresses God in his immanence within the world.
So is God a moral agent?