h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Diver. Oh, was your point really that 'observations are interpreted'! Well, there can't be much doubt about that. Imagine if the scientist published a paper saying "At time t dial x showed a reading of 7. At time t+1 it showed a reading of 8". Wouldn't be very enlightening would it!

there certainly is no God..
god is just the name given by man to his "unexplainables" and his fears.
should have been obvious to us when we realise that the early man tried to worship and appease rain,thunder and lightning.
people who go to places of worship are people who arent mentally strong enough to face their problems and need a pillar of support(mental),which they have named god.

Hi Bod, That was a wonderful posting to mark the 10,000.

SIN!!!!Since there has been so much discussion recently about the nature of evil, sin, suffering and pain ( and in view of Moth's last posting which draws a very clear distinction between pain and suffering ) maybe it's time , once more, to remind ourselves about the origin of the word "sin." In the New Testament Greek ( the language from which all later versions derive, there being no Aramaic texts of Jesus's words surviving) the word used for sin is "hamartia," an archery term originally meaning off-target, literally, missing the point, being off-centre.

The theological implications of "original sin" are therefore more interesting ( and less offensive ) in the light of this idea of "sinfullness."

We tend to think of "sin", if we think of sin at all, as something we did or didn't do ( forgive us our trespasses...we have done those things we ought not to have done, and we have left undone those things we ought to have done and there is no health in us...etc.) But the concept of "original sin" implies not an act, nor even a failure, but a state into which we are born.

If the "hamartia" concept implies that sin is being off-target, then the sinless state is by definition "on-target," the target being "God." It has been said ( sorry, don't remember where I read this ) that the development of the rational intellectual faculties, the self-aware mind, is the "fall from grace," that our primate ancestors experienced at the crucial stage in our evolution that defined us as human beings. Awareness of separation is original sin.

The curiosity of theology is that babies are said to be born in original sin, but, as far as we know ( who can remember clearly ) babies have no "sense of separation" in any rational sense. Though as a parent, one knows intimately the way in which babies are mother-bonded, and aware of connectedness, or its lack, of mother's presence or absence.

And of course, to the logical mind, the idea of a new-born baby as being capable of "sin" in any active sense seems grotesque. [Though, biologically, infant "furry", animals are capable of ruthless, "evil" cruelty, an often-observed example being the way newly-hatched chicks sometimes push their unborn siblings' eggs out of the nest! Am just now reading Lyall Watson's "Dark Nature," on the biological basis of evil.]

But if "original sin" is defined as the original "hamartia," or off-target-ness, then it is clear that the very development of the separate self-sense is exactly that "original sin." So it is significant that when you study what Jesus said ( St.John's Gospel, 10.30 and others ) that "I and my Father are One," " and that they - his disciples - be One in me as I in Thee.." etc. the heart of His teaching is about the removal of separateness,( hamartia / sin ) and the re-union with the Divine, the Father, God.

Sadly, the teachings of Jesus ( probably most closely recorded in the Gospel According to Thomas, which the Pauline Church either lost or outlawed ) have tended to take second place to the Pauline emphasis Suffering,Death, Resurrection, Sacrifice, Redemption. Though this emphasis is stronger in the western than in the Orthodox Church. It is significant that St.Paul never met Jesus, nor heard Him teach.

But in that context, original sin equates quite clearly with the original Buddhist teaching of "dukkha," often translated as "suffering," [though the Sanskrit word translates more closely as "unsatisfactoriness," ( according to my Sanskrit/Buddhist scholar friend, Alistair Shearer.)]

In a word, the human condition is innately "of-centre" in that we have a sense of separateness: from each other, from our environment, and from the Divine.

All religions ultimately preach a path back to awareness of the underlying reality, which is unity, wholeness( =health )divine, sacred, transcendent,call it what you will.

Alji.


Nope. God originated the *possibility* of sin (see my conversation with Bod) but man chose to commit it.

So Toxxin,

What do you make of posting 10023? You seem to define "sin" as a committed act, not an innate state.

Hi Moth,

"for sins read causal pain and suffering, for what other real sins are there?"

Agreed absolutely. The Bible includes "sins" of homosexuality and eating pork. I can understand the "sin" of eating pork since (unless the pig died naturally) it involves causing suffering to an innocent sentient being.

Yet I know Christian bacon-eaters who ignore this one and yet condemn homosexuals. Not quite worked out why that last one's a "sin" yet. Don't think it can be.

Back to the little furry animal. I think I see where you're coming from, but I have a point of disagreement with it:

I do not think that an ACTION changes the actor; rather I think that the underlying MOTIVATION for the act may change the actor. If I KFC (kill furry creature) without compassion then yes I can see how that makes me more predisposed to kill again in future. But if my motivation is compassionate then I will still feel sorrow for my act even as I am committing it, and I won't become a more "evil" person.

In the real world of course it's inconceivable that KFC would be a sufficient and necessary condition for the prevention of all future suffering. Therefore if somebody offered me the choice described I would reject it as I wouldn't believe them. I'm with Math on this one. Further, KFC could still have negative consequences even if my motives were pure, since other people who became aware of my actions might think, Oh, Bod KFC so it must be OK - leading to future KFCs and future suffering.

However, the hypothetical example was that KFC would END ALL FUTURE SUFFERING of all sentient beings, and this is the crucial point. In that case it's the right thing to do, fo otherwise I am responsible for all future suffering of all sentient beings and that's the greater harm.

It is said that the Buddha was once on a ship where he became aware of a plan by one man to kill the rest of the crew. So he killed that man to prevent it, on the grounds that the karmic consequences of that act were less bad than the alternative. And I think that was the right choice.

Bod

Toxx.

"If religions can converge too, maybe there could be unity! I shall do what I can from the natural theology side, anyway."

Hi Insight .

Just stopped my packing as I thought it rude to leave such a detailed reply to languish for four days.

"Who requires you to surrender your free will? You may want to be an artist, a scientist, an actor etc."

You do not have free will if all your important life decisions are being carried out under duress. Simply put David, according to the Christian belief system, you either accept your God and live by his laws or you are damned to eternal torment. Whether you are a book-keeper or an astronaut is irrelevant. It sounds remarkably like "be good German or its the concentration camp for you mein herr".

"Who's an unforgiving God? Jehovah is perfectly willing to grant forgiveness, and has made sacrifice for us in order to be able to do it without breaking his standards of justice. But as you later state, you're unwilling to apologize, to ask forgiveness."

Slavery or death? That's a standard of justice? Also as has been said before this omniescent deity must have known that the sacrifice of his only child would be utterly in vain. Thus the sacrifice was not just.

Hey what have I got to apologize for? Why should I ask forgiveness? Would you demand that a child with Spina Bifida beg forgiveness before giving them the therapy they require to live a full life? If I was 'infected' with sin before I was born then it is NOT MY FAULT!

Also what standard of justice demands that every descendant of a transgressor be punished for eternity? That's not justice, it is sadism.

"Clearly not quite as well as you do, since I wrote an argument against hellfire only a few days ago, and have done several times before that."

I apologise. I had not read that.

"You were conceived with sin, born with sin, and you live with sin, just as we all do. Jehovah didn't put it there. Your parents did, as their parents put it in them, and as you put it in your own children."

Excuse me? My parents certainly didn't put it there. They are both solid, paid up, card carrying christians, saved and everything. Sin had to come from somewhere. If your God is the creator of everything then it must have originated within His creation. He is responsible for it.

"What sense would it make for him to have to make a sacrifice to remove something that he himself put there? He would be cutting off his nose to spite his own face (if I understand that expression correctly)."

It doesn't make sense if you regard him as a benevolent figure, now does it? But what if He isn't benevolent. What if he is the genocidal maniac the OT makes him out to be?


"1. I'M not right to execute anyone.
2. If God actively executed people for original sin, none of us would be here. Original sin is like a disease, it's hereditary, and it kills us itself."

David, you're brighter than that so don't obfuscate please. You know I wasn't referring to 'you' executing people. The argument remains - is your God right to hold very one of Adams descendants responsible for Adam's transgression?

"Just remember that while I chose slavery to Jehovah, you chose independence from Him - EXACTLY as Adam and Eve did."

So you admit it is slavery (it's a cheap shot David, but you said it ).

"You've willfully replicated the very error that created original sin, and by extension all the badness in the world, in the first place. So unless you change your mind someday, you can never claim that you shouldn't pay the penalty for what Adam did - because you've done the same thing yourself."

But what of those who never had or understood that choice David? I have said that if you are right I will take my punishment like a man and will resist the old tyrant to the bitter end. But what of the unbaptised babies, the people who never heard the Word and those who are incapable of understanding it?

"(And don't forget to consider that if you choose independence from someone, it literally means you choose not to depend on them, not to receive provisions from them. Provisions such as food, protection from diseases and natural disasters, not forgetting an everlasting supply of life. So you can't blame Jehovah for not giving you these things; you've chosen not to receive them.)"

Really, excpet that in Jehovah's case he not only witholds such provisions but threatens dire consequences as well. There is a world of difference between:
"No you can't have the bacon sandwich"
and
"No you can't have the bacon sandwich and if you don't beg me for it I will shoot you in the kneecaps".

"And if you consider your own standards to be superior to Jehovah's, I'm nonplussed. Since you see yourself as superior to God, then if your creator Himself were to explain everything to you, it doesn't seem as if He could help you."

At no time have I said that I am superior to your God. I have, however, used my 'god-given' faculty of reason to question the moral and ethical basis of the choices he is apparently offering us. You have not yet given anyone a rationale for accepting that choice except "do it or you'll get yours".

"So it seems pointless for little me to bother talking to you any further.Though I might try again sometime anyway, if only to defend Jehovah's reputation against your libel."

Libel only exists if what I say can be proven to be untrue and spoken with malicious intent. You have not proven the former, nor the latter.

Thus I expect we shall continue to cross swords,
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

dirtyjeans...

The reason worshiping thunder and rain did no good is /because thunder and rain aren't God!/ God is God. Big difference. You'd be suprised what He can do. I was.

Yes Chai, becomming self aware, conscious and loosing universal awareness, group consciousness. I'll go along with that.

By the way did you read my post on 31 and 32, the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra?


Alji

You were conceived with sin, born with sin, and you live with sin, just as we all do. Jehovah didn't put it there. Your parents did, as their parents put it in them, and as you put it in your own children.

Thus we are condemmed/damned until we 1)find out about your it god and 2)we embrace it above all others? Hmm ,what happens if we find out about the history of the catholic church and its popes and what they considered to be godly behaviour first ,historically the evidence would make it difficult for anyone to join/accept their teachings.And currently there is the revelations of the christian brothers, and the attempt by their church to cover up the evidence and to deny the damage(eg in Aust. and USA )to those involved.If this was your introduction to christianity it would certainly make one think twice.

And don't forget to consider that if you choose independence from someone, it literally means you choose not to depend on them, not to receive provisions from them. Provisions such as food, protection from diseases and natural disasters, not forgetting an everlasting supply of life. So you can't blame Jehovah for not giving you these things; you've chosen not to receive them.)

Does this mean that the major christian populations of the poor and unrepresented in such countries as the Philipines,Africa and Black America have CHOSEN independence from your it god ,because they surely do not receive food ,protection from diseases and natural disasters?

And as a side light I'd be interested in your take on the history of the goodness of those in positions of power in your religion ?(I talk here of the cardinals ,bishops and popes of christian history ) Where are they now and when do we judge them , now ,10 years,15 or 20 years after they perish? And how does this equate to us now and our own decisions concerning the 'laws laid down ' by the current frail human male ?

mildly interested, and peckish

Sorry my reply was to Insight

Hi Toxx.

So here's where I think we are with the free will argument:

1. I accept your argument that God's INTERVENTION would go against free will by preventing the desired consequences of "evil" acts. But if free will is a greater good as you suggest then you must conclude that God must never intervene, and this prohibition must work from the dawn of free will - God has never intervened, God does not intervene and God will never intervene. Do you?

2. I disagree with your argument that God's PERSUASION would go against free will. Preventing consequences of free choice may be an infringement of free will but persuading to choose good is not; rather it CHANGES free will without OBSTRUCTING it. The person can still freely choose but being better informed will freely choose the good option. You think that free will is defined such that this view of free will is invalid; I think that free will is defined such that this view is valid. I therefore think that we must agree to differ on this point - I don't think either of us disagrees with the other on the developments of our arguments, but rather the disagreement is at the starting point of what we each consider genuine free will to be.

3. Your view seems to rest on the belief that free will is a greater good - something you implied in your post about going back to the Big Bang. I'd be interested to know why you think that. I don't. i think that the consequqnces of "evil" are often so extreme that the cost of free will is too high. An example would be when Sierra Leone soldiers gang-raped a girl and hacked off her hands with a machete, leaving her emotionally traumatised, severely disabled and pregnant at the age of 13. I don't think that price is worth giving the soldiers free will for, and anyway what about the free will of the girl to avoid being raped and mutilated? Somebody a while back (may have been you - I forget) said that without free will we would be like babies completely dependent on God. What's wrong with that? The people who are most happy in the world (Tibetan monks aside) are probably babies who are totally dependent on their parents and are helpless creatures incapable of most actions and decisions (therefore with no free will?) Seems an OK sort of state to me. What's so great about free will? Why should it be seen as a greater good?

4. If you think that free will is indeed a greater good and that for it to be genuine God must keep out of it, I think you must explain what you are meaning when you pray to God "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven". Are you not asking him to bring about an evil-free situation? Does this not breach your greater-good freewill? Shouldn't you stop praying for it? (I'm assuming here that you are a Christian - if not maybe another should be invited to answer that point.)

Looking forward to your reply. Also, please do let me know if my interpretation of our discussion so far seems wrong.

Blessings,

Hi Insight,

"Since we've reached 10000, it would seem an appropriate time to ask what, if anything, everyone thinks they've learned from this thread."

Personally, when I joined this thread not quite 10,000 posts ago I was a Christian with Buddhist tendencies and no clue about the nature of neo-paganism, now a year(ish) later I'm a Buddhist with Christian tendancies and a profound respect for Druidry. Yes, I know the objection in some quarters to labels, but please know that my intention is to convey a summary of my worldview, not to connote allegiance.

I joined the thread hoping for a satisfactory answer to overcome the Problem of Evil, and am still loooking for it. Although with nudging from Math I've decided to rename it the Problem of Suffering...

And the best thing I've learned is that there's a rich community of people who think about the aspects of the human condition which matter the most and who are prepared to debate, argue, support and encourage all along the way. And who are right here at my PC pretty much any time I want a chat. Thank you Alji, Az, Della, Chai, Hoo (if you ever pass by here again), Jordan, Math, Moth, Toxxin and everybody (including the person I really should have mentioned and it's unbelievable that I didn't! ). You've all made this a spiritually enriching experience for me, and I hope that in some small way I've helped you in the same way.

Now Toxx, about this free will thing...

Bod

Math said:

"It doesn't make sense if you regard him as a benevolent figure, now does it? But what if He isn't benevolent. What if he is the genocidal maniac the OT makes him out to be?"

That's perhaps the scariest possibility of all, and (it seems to me), perfectly consistent with the evidence.

Hey Bod,

Your posts fill me with warmth and make me smile .Whatever your beliefs ,your humanity gives me joy.Many thanks,,,,,

Math,

"At no time have I said that I am superior to your God"

Then let me say it. Math, you are morally superior to the Abrahamic deity. For if power and responsibility go hand in hand then people should be judged (I'm referring to the judgement of discernment, not the judgement of self-righteousness) according to how well they have used their power for good within the constraints that level of power imposes.

Thus it seems perfectly reasonable to me to conclude that God does not live up to your fine moral standards (unless you've been deceiving us all along about the sort of person you are).

Thank you for not demanding that I worship you.

Bod

Thanks Peckish

Chai. I'm less than convinced by your translation. Couldn't the archery term mean 'wrong' just as well as 'off'? 'Not correct', 'not good enough'? I think you're relying too much on one form of words for a concept translated between languages, cultures and times.

People made a similar error with regard to the ancient Egyptians and attributed to them the belief that the sky was a cow. It turned out that the sky goddess sometimes took the form of a cow, I think. It doesn't matter whether that is accurate, you get the idea.

Ah yep, 'sin' isn't a word I use, along with 'spiritual'. 'Wrong' is a property of actions or, indeed, inaction.

Bod.

1. Yep I do take it that God must not and does not intervene since the moment of creation.

2. I don't think that psychological constraints on choices are significantly different from physical constraints when it comes to what God can do without throwing out freedom of action.

3. Yep, I was the one who mentioned babies. If you don't accept that then you aren't going to accept that freewill is the greater good. I think this is where we have to agree to differ.

4. I'm not a Christian but an agnostic. I am a Christian apologist and, I like to think, a natural theologian and a few other things. I think that prayer is self-persuasion as much as anything else. Hence by praying, Christians are persuading themselves to do God's will. They aren't really hoping that God will intervene magically and take our freewill away. They are praying for the moral development of themselves and the human race. That is the way they hope that God's will is to be implemented.