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

Fnord. The reason that the Theists idea of God as a perfect being is extremely simple is that any departure from perfection would have to be explained. A less than perfectly good God would require volumes to explain why He should be less than good in those particular respects. Similarly for the other characteristics of God. He is not an alpha male, of course, being genderless and bodiless.



Simplicity is not what you happen to find easy and natural, although the word is sometimes used that way in other contexts.

There is no question of God's not being able to "hold heaven by himself". He can do anything that is logically possible. I can understand that the fallen angel is a heavenly personification of the fall of man, but that would be a digression too far.

God wants the good for us and society is a good part of the world He has given us. However, the good rather than society is His reason for our creation.

If my argument seems formless, it is because it is designed to reply to other arguments of similar structure. You were arguing that we couldn't expect to understand God. My response, in essence, is that nothing could be simpler.

Hi Myst,

"Satan is not the one who gave his son, and is not a perfect being. Direct opposite, I would think. He wants to damn us all, not send us to heaven. He /hates/ us, because God loves us."

If those beings existed and had the characteristics you believe, I would agree.

But my point is that you must have some external point of reference for judging that God is good and Satan is bad. What is that?

Bod

Hi there, IS. Nice logical answer about the 'visible universe'. Unfortunately the facts tend to get in the way! Given that we accept that the universe is expanding at less than the speed of light, there hasn't been enough time for any of it to have gone in light years of distance beyond its age in years. Hence all of the universe is visible. The furthest parts are 'seen' as they were in the time of the early universe. That it the isotropic 'noise' discovered in the 1960s.

Beyond this there is nothing to be seen. If something were there, would its gravitational effects not be apparent, even though it couldn't be seen directly? That it how we deduce the existence of planets of other stars that are too small to see.

Hi Della,

"No, Bod, I know what she meant - that people are responsible for this event (the raping you spoke of) - not God, at least not directly!"

But indirectly, no?

Bod

Hi Toxx,

10292?

Hi Myst,

I made a post a few thousand ago which went like this:

(Sorry not to just give you the reference, but my PC died and I lost my bookmarking all the way up to post 10,000. )

"Do you really think that any justice system, especially a divine one, can possibly accept punishment of the innocent as atonement for the sins/crimes of the guilty?

<>

I'm aware of that argument, but I don't think it's an illustration of justice; I would suggest that the aim of justice is to make society a better (safer) place. According to my understanding, the purpose of punishment is therefore to deter criminals from repeating their crimes and to deter potential criminals from committing those crimes. Punishment "because somebody must be punished" smacks of revenge.

Further, if we suggest that the purpose of punishment is to ensure that a criminal repays a debt to society, this raises some disturbing implications. If a crime implies a debt is incurred which must be repaid, could not a prepayment be made? I could perhaps go into my local police station, pay £625,000 to commit a murder, go ahead with the deed and then point out that my debt has already been paid."

Bod

"So, one's morals or actions don't matter as long as they believe 1 and 2? If Hitler or Stalin or Caligula decided too believe 1 and 2 just before dieing, they would be saved, but if Gandhi or Gotema Siddhartha refused to believe it (or in the second's case, was never even exposed to the idea), they wouldn't be saved, no matter how much good they did?"

Myst and Inverted Solipsist,

The Bodhisattva vow demonstrates a wish to free all sentient beings from suffering.

Whilst it is true that some conditions are conducive to suffering and some to happiness, ultimately these are psychological phenomena and the single most important determinant of whether somebody is happy or not is how they deal with events.

If hell exists and all non-Christians go there, then there must be a significant number of sentient beings suffering there.

So the Buddha would probably wish to go to hell rather than heaven, to teach them the path to freedom from suffering. Which would really piss off Satan...

Math and I have already booked our spots by Sulphur Outfall number four.

Bod

Its interesting that we reprsent justice as aset of scales.

Unfortunately the idea of equilibrium and balance only starts to make sense in the feild of physics. As for humanity I dont think we will ever crack the one.

The phrase "Natural balance" that I often hear people using is a nonsense, as the progression of evolution atests to.

OK some of you dont buy evolution well take the expasion of the universe as an example nothing is in balance or still everything is in motion. I know the catholics didnt like this one but its true the earth is not the still point of the Big G's creation the earth spins round the sun which inturn...

If the balance that came from yoga and all that yin/yang malarky were real the human body would not die and decay.

I kind of dig Buddism although I cant spell it but is still suffers from the basic human impulse to chuck a load of supernatural human perspective mumbo jumbo into the mix.(if Im wrong save me a spot by sulphur chute 4 and well meditate our conciouness someplace better)

Anyway back to justice. That is why the idea of Jesus wipping away all our sins was introduced. So that the preist could say to the flock ok you live in crap down here with nothing to eat and the bad guy lives up on the hill eating the fatted calf but trust in me and the Big G everything will be ok in the next place. Instant uncomlicated justice all you have to do is be good listen to what I say every sunday and wait to die. Till then just keep putting the money on the plate.

Myst

You can have your paradise, I'll take the hall of my Lady.

But there are paths through the nine worlds.

So don't you worry. I'll pop along to the pearly gates and wave at you lot stuck inside. Then I'll go on a long, long journey, and see the worlds.

Jez

>>But while you are there save a thought for us down by sewer outfall number four, holding unbaptised babies out of the flames.<<
Math, how you do *repeat* your argument! I get the impression that you're *powerfully* p*ssed off, to the point of being quite unjust, perhaps even spiteful!
Uncle Tom, Massa... give me a break!

Now that sounds good.

So the whole god/religion is like choosing a mortgage provider.

Sorry Bod you can give my place to someone else by the sulphur outlet. Im joining the five percent nation of Islam lot. With their package I get to be the true and living embodiment of God . I have to battle against the slave makers of the poor and strive to enlighten the majority who are under the spell of the slave makers of the poor, but hey I do that anyway. As Im now god and infalible (apart from my spelling that is but hey im god and I make the rules) Bacon Sarnie anyone?

Hi blicky (and glad to see you back!)

"I kind of dig Buddism although I cant spell it but is still suffers from the basic human impulse to chuck a load of supernatural human perspective mumbo jumbo into the mix.(if Im wrong save me a spot by sulphur chute 4 and well meditate our conciouness someplace better)"

Depends on the particular brand of Buddhism. The development of Buddhism in different cultural contexts has been one of integration rather than supersension (I think I just made a new word), with the result that you have a wide variety of beliefs labelled as "Buddhism". The core principles are not, however, "supernatural". Rather than being a set of assumptions they are a set of conclusions rationally derived from facts about the human condition.

One of the things which attracted me to Buddhism was its honesty about what is known and not known, particularly in Zen. So a famous Zen Master was once approached with the question "What happens to us after we die?" and responded "I don't know, I have not died yet".

Another saw two Buddhists discussing subjectivity and objectivity - whether things exist independently of mind. When one told him that "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone [which the Master pointed out] is inside my mind" he replied, "Your head must feel very heavy, if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

Bod

No, Bod, probably not even indirectly. No more than I am responsible for what my adult children or my grandchildren (when I have some) do...

Math, Della, Babies by the sulphur outfall,

I think it's fair to say that a significant proportion of Christians take a more "Jesus" than "Old Testament" view of God. After all, I've yet to meet a Christian who really believes "Blessed is he who takes his enemies children and dashes them against a rock". George W seems to, but he's not a real Christian (note: judgement of discernment not self-righteousness).

They perhaps understand Jesus' observation that "No-one takes new wine and puts it into old wineskins for then the skins will split and both wine and skins be ruined" in the same way that I do - ie. Jesus SUPERSEDED the Old Testament rather than SUPPLEMENTING it. After all, in the Sermon on the Mount he actively rejected the eye-for-an-eye rule. This was not supplementing, since the OT rule was just that - a REQUIREMENT not an OPTION.

I think Della has already said that her view is like that.

Let's distinguish between those who know Jesus with their hearts and minds and those who know him through a book (one compiled through oral tradition then copying, additions and Imperial editing and suppression), eh?

Bod

Dear Della,

"No, Bod, probably not even indirectly. No more than I am responsible for what my adult children or my grandchildren (when I have some) do..."

I would suggest that if you were THERE as they were about to perform a bad act, and if you had the POWER to stop it, and if the victim DIDN'T then you WOULD be responsible, morally if not in the eyes of the law.

Bod

Hey blicky,

"Sorry Bod you can give my place to someone else by the sulphur outlet. Im joining the five percent nation of Islam lot."

Oh, that's OK - they're headed for number three which isn't so far away. I'll be sure to visit.

>>OK some of you dont buy evolution well take the expasion of the universe as an example nothing is in balance or still everything is in motion. I know the catholics didnt like this one but its true the earth is not the still point of the Big G's creation the earth spins round the sun which inturn...<<
blickybadger, maybe it's PMT, but I am losing patience with the way we Christians are misrepresented here! No one here (with the possible exception of Insight) doesn't accept evolution! It's especially silly to say that of Catholics, who accepted evolution long before many (American)Protestants!!!

Toxx,

"Hi there, IS. Nice logical answer about the 'visible universe'. Unfortunately the facts tend to get in the way! Given that we accept that the universe is expanding at less than the speed of light, there hasn't been enough time for any of it to have gone in light years of distance beyond its age in years. Hence all of the universe is visible. The furthest parts are 'seen' as they were in the time of the early universe. That it the isotropic 'noise' discovered in the 1960s.
Beyond this there is nothing to be seen. If something were there, would its gravitational effects not be apparent, even though it couldn't be seen directly? That it how we deduce the existence of planets of other stars that are too small to see."

What if the universe contains more than one Big Bang, happening so far apart that the gravitational impact of one on the other is infinitisemal (or however you spell it!)?

Bod

A good point, Bod. It comes back to the issue of free will, doesn't it? I don't fancy my chances of stopping my sons (especially the younger one, who is very dogmatic and stubborn) doing anything he has decided he wants to do! That's how I see my analogy, and it might work that way for God.
Whether free will *is* such an unmixed blessing is of course, another issue, and I remember asking a woman in my church that very question - "what is so all fired wonderful and sacred about free will?" (I was pretty peeved then, as well.)

"No one here (with the possible exception of Insight) doesn't accept evolution! It's especially silly to say that of Catholics, who accepted evolution long before many (American)Protestants!!"

Indeed, when Darwin proposed his theory the Christian establishment was saying "Wow, look how great God is to come up with this" and non-Christians in the West were saying "Rubbish! No way I'm descended from an ape!"

Bod (who did question evolution earlier in the thread but then accepted the counter-arguments to support it)

Della - please join me in a moment and know that I recognise you as a kind and wise person , also that I think Jesus was one of the greatest people to ever live and that I'm open to the possibility of his being a 00God (not a secret agent God , but like triple-O without the omnipotence).

I think the God portrayed by the OT is morally corrupt, but I don't think he exists anyway so that's probably OK.