Why Does God Stay His Hand

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But this story falls apart when you look at it from what caused her problems with her feet in the first place.  Would you have prevented that if you could have?  Would you have inflicted it on her purposefully?

Our faith does speak to degrees and fulness, such as salvation (an individual state with varying degrees of glory falling short of exaltation) and exaltation (a familial state, the highest and progressing state of glory). The description of God as omniscient and omnipotent, is in the context of exaltation, being one with others. Doctrinally peaking, glory is intelligence, or light and truth expressed as eternal life, “eternal” having quantitative (“gnolaum”) and qualitative (“the way”) properties.

Having this in mind, we teach that God may “inflict” difficulties that we discover must be overcome only through the merits of His Son, who provides the degree and fulness of oneness we are willing to enjoy. Extreme examples to which we ascribe cruelty are not relevant because we do not have the same knowledge, power, wherewithal, scope or stewardship as He.

So, you would not inflict certain things on your children, rightly so because you lack the ability, remedy or justifiable purpose. But there are certainly certain things you do inflict upon them, especially from their perspective, intentionally, in good faith with parental love. Scale.

[Teancum]

On 11/30/2023 at 5:27 PM, Calm said:

Are there not many imaginary ideals that people believe in to the point of giving up their lives that have yielded a better life for others in the long run, like democracy and freedom for all?  Is this belief and hope not a good thing?

True. 

On 11/30/2023 at 5:27 PM, Calm said:

 

And is God a falsehood?  Maybe your own experience has provided you enough evidence that you believe he doesn’t exist, but others, including myself, see the evidence as more than enough to support his existence.

Is God a falsehood?  My actual position is I do not know if there is or is not a God, and I strongly believe nobody knows that there IS a God.  

On 11/30/2023 at 5:27 PM, Calm said:

If one can’t prove or disprove God’s existence, there is as much room for hope in him as there is room for hope that someday those imaginary ideals won’t be so imaginary any more.  If this hope helps people endure loss and pain in order to keep struggling for a better life for themselves and others, why is this hope not a good thing?

Let me think about this one a bit more. It is worthy of more thought on my part before I answer.

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Asking again. How far would you take this? Do you think literally all suffering should be taken away? And if not, why not?

It is really not how far I would take it.  We can discuss the pros and cons that come through suffering, if you wish.  Would I take all suffering away?  Again it is not me at all. My point is this is to me the strongest evidence that there is not a Theistic involved God like Mormonism or any other theistic religion's God.  And if such a being exists is it moral to allow the horrific suffering that happens.  If yes to what purpose does it serve?

[Teancum]

41 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

But would you considering all of the issues you have with a god that allows so much suffering?

If such a being exists perhaps I would not he happy given the topic.  Such a God would be a cruel being.  

[Vanguard]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is really not how far I would take it.  We can discuss the pros and cons that come through suffering, if you wish.  Would I take all suffering away?  Again it is not me at all. My point is this is to me the strongest evidence that there is not a Theistic involved God like Mormonism or any other theistic religion's God.  And if such a being exists is it moral to allow the horrific suffering that happens.  If yes to what purpose does it serve?

Fair enough. But if you have a serious issue with allowing what we call horrific suffering you must have an idea about what constitutes non-horrific suffering? And why would non-horrific suffering not be included? Much like a theist (myself included) is pushed to the wall about a god who would allow horrific suffering, those who do no accept a god who would allow this to happen are equally faced with a conundrum. What constitutes horrific suffering? And why is the non-horrific variety allowed to remain? Or should all suffering be taken? What is your basis for making the distinction? 

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is really not how far I would take it.  We can discuss the pros and cons that come through suffering, if you wish.  Would I take all suffering away?  Again it is not me at all. My point is this is to me the strongest evidence that there is not a Theistic involved God like Mormonism or any other theistic religion's God.  And if such a being exists is it moral to allow the horrific suffering that happens.  If yes to what purpose does it serve?

As a moral being, you presumably allow what others might call suffering (horrific or otherwise) that are within your ability to prevent. I am thinking of your children who face the consequences of their choices (moral or otherwise). They complain when you, knowing what is good for them in this world, don’t intervene or take too long by their reckoning, to ease their pain. Our religion places this relationship in a far larger perspective of sequential estates (pre-mortal, Edenic, mortal, post-mortal, post-resurrection, etc.).

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well philosophically I understand that.  And William James would likely agree even if what one believes is not literally true.

Do you agree though?  Why or why not. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Again yes but also no.  Mormonism told me, and other adherent, that if I did not accept the LDS gospel and its ordinances my state of happiness in eternity is not as good as one who believes and receives such things.  Most religions really don't take this laid back approach of well hey, if WHATEVER you believe works for you and makes you happy then great.n If not find something that does.

Why are you making this about Mormonism?  I thought we were talking about Gandolf 😉

I don't feel any obligation to plant seeds that don't work for me spiritually and personally, regardless of what "most religions" say or do.  After testing seeds, I am only obligated to keep and follow the light that I feel for my own happiness and well-being.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I would like to know your view as to what is different.

To believe in a God is to be a theist.  But even an agnostic who neither believes or disbelieves can at least hope in a God and afterlife.  Hope doesn't require a commitment to belief or disbelief.  That is the difference. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I guess at this point in my life I lean towards being more of a realist. I don't want to believe in something that is a myth or lie even if it brings me some sort of happiness, hope or peace.

You say that you don't want to believe in something that is myth.  Are you considering the opposite though?  Is it better to disbelieve in what is actual?  

That is your prerogative, but I think you would be better served by letting go of any sort of imagined absolute certainty about God, whether he/she/it is myth or not.  One can't know with absolute certainty.  We are therefore left with a choice of hoping or doubting.  What is the harm in hope, even if is myth, honestly?  On the other hand, what is the harm in casting off God if he/she/it is actual?  Seems to me the better/happier choice is to choose hope, if you are able. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

  Regarding the issue of suffering and evil belief in a god being that allows or even creates such suffering and evil to exist brings me more pain than hope.   I cannot worship such a cruel being.

I rely on the hope that God is loving, merciful, and just, even in the face of the problem of evil.  I don't have the answers, but I hope that God does.   That helps me personally.  

Requiring absolute certainty before one can hope in something seems foolish to me.  That would result in a hopeless world/life.  No thanks. 

Edited December 2, 2023 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/27/2023 at 10:07 PM, Buckeye said:

... How is metal bonded? By first burning off the rust and contaminants. But clean metal is not alone sufficient to bond. The natural state of metal is cold.  So the heating and pounding are needed to awaken, activate, and motivate the metal to a state where a bond can form.  The process is very painful.  It comes with risk. But there is no other way. ...

Hmm.  God seeks to bind us with Him, and with each other?  ("If ye are not One, ye are not Mine," and all that.  Doctrine and Covenants 38:30).  This reminds me of perhaps my favorite verse in all of Latter-day Saint Hymnody (though it's not from a Restoration Hymn, we have claimed it as ours.  It is attributed to Robert Keene, ca. 1787, and it is the fifth verse of "How Firm a Foundation."  Economic realities of extensive lettering on headstones aside, I would like it to be my epitaph:
 

Quote

 

When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,

My Grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.

The flame shall not hurt thee, I only design

Thy dross to comsume and thy gold to refine!

 

 

[Vanguard]

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Hmm.  God seeks to bind us with Him, and with each other?  ("If ye are not One, ye are not Mine," and all that.  Doctrine and Covenants 38:30).  This reminds me of perhaps my favorite verse in all of Latter-day Saint Hymnody (though it's not from a Restoration Hymn, we have claimed it as ours.  It is attributed to Robert Keene, ca. 1787, and it is the fifth verse of "How Firm a Foundation."  Economic realities of extensive lettering on headstones aside, I would like it to be my epitaph:

28 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,

My Grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.

The flame shall not hurt thee, I only design

Thy dross to comsume and thy gold to refine!

I think the problem is more challenging than even this. It's one thing to wrestle with that which we know to be true, to embrace the promises given us by the Savior at our worst hour. It's an entirely different proposition when the tragedy befalls someone who does not know the Savior in this way and worse when the individual suffering is just a young child who never even got the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior.  Not every person who suffers a horrific death has the opportunity to find a silver lining as it were in their struggle.

The struggle of believing in a moral god who allows these calamities to happen has merit. I just don't see the alternative without ultimately turning the purpose of this mortality upside down never to be remedied.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Vanguard

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

As a moral being, you presumably allow what others might call suffering (horrific or otherwise) that are within your ability to prevent. I am thinking of your children who face the consequences of their choices (moral or otherwise). They complain when you, knowing what is good for them in this world, don’t intervene or take too long by their reckoning, to ease their pain. Our religion places this relationship in a far larger perspective of sequential estates (pre-mortal, Edenic, mortal, post-mortal, post-resurrection, etc.).

That sounds reasonable until you think it through. Any parent that deliberately put their children into positions that God routinely does would have their parental rights revoked. Talking about how it is analogous either makes mortal parents into horrible people or God into a loving parent who somehow kisses his children goodbye and then deliberately sends them to a torture camp.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That sounds reasonable until you think it through. Any parent that deliberately put their children into positions that God routinely does would have their parental rights revoked. Talking about how it is analogous either makes mortal parents into horrible people or God into a loving parent who somehow kisses his children goodbye and then deliberately sends them to a 

Now you know why 1/3 of sons and daughters of God at the council in heaven rebelled against the Father’s plan of salvation, made war with Christ, and thereafter were cast out of heaven as a consequence. The fact is that there is no other so-called plan of salvation that has any possibility of working to produce lasting happiness other than the one we a living under at this time. And the proof of the superiority of the Father’s plan is in the pudding because all who embrace the Father’s often heartbreakingly difficult plan of salvation will ultimately be saved indeed and enjoy lasting peace and joy in one of the Father’s many heavenly mansions of glory.

We all joyfully accepted the opportunity to come to this fallen world, even after being fully informed of the sufferings and horrors we might have to face and endure. And why were we willing to encounter such great trials of faith? It’s because we chose to follow in the footsteps of the courageous Lord Jesus Christ, who volunteered to endure the infinite and eternal suffering of his atoning sacrifice because he knew that an exceeding and eternal weight of glory awaited him if he kept kept his faith strong while walking through the atoning valley of the shadow of death.

And in the greatest of all ironies, the only ones who end up suffering in misery forever are those who pridefully refuse to accept Christ and repent of their sins because they are unwilling to let go of their mistaken idea that the Father’s plan of salvation will bring nothing but pain and misery because it’s too difficult and unfair. 

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

And in the greatest of all ironies, the only ones who end up suffering in misery forever are those who pridefully refuse to accept Christ and repent of their sins because they are unwilling to let go of their mistaken idea that the Father’s plan of salvation will bring nothing but pain and misery because it’s too difficult and unfair. 

No, I have seen greater irony.

I also find it odd that God has revealed to you the motives that caused those in the premortal world to fall. It is a common supposition since it seems logical but we are talking about beings we don’t understand living a kind of life we have forgotten with knowledge we don’t have. It is a bit of a stretch to guess why some of them made certain decisions. Also if we didn’t know pain and despair there how would fear of it possibly motivate anyone?

[CV75]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That sounds reasonable until you think it through. Any parent that deliberately put their children into positions that God routinely does would have their parental rights revoked. Talking about how it is analogous either makes mortal parents into horrible people or God into a loving parent who somehow kisses his children goodbye and then deliberately sends them to a torture camp.

There are several ways to think it through, some more thoroughly than others (and why isn’t it “throughly”?).

In some ways mortal parents are indeed horrible people and God deliberately sends His children to a torture camp: we are all sinners and fall short of the glory (horrible people) and God did to us what He did to His Son (consigned us into torture). But we know mortality is not the complete picture, and far better than horrible things happen here as well, as I described above. There are many estates in which God operates, and we are most cognizant of the present estate in which He relates to us, but we may not always be cognizant of the work of Christ and the Comforter availed here and hereafter.

“The joy [and misery] we feel has little to do with the circumstances of our lives and everything to do with the focus of our lives (Russell M. Nelson).” When we focus on what our doctrine refers to as the light of Christ, and then on whatever else we might haply find building upon that (and granted, very few find the restored gospel in this life, but it abounds in the other estates), we realize that the attributes of godliness, however nascent, render our experience of good and evil beneficial.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I think the problem is more challenging than even this. It's one thing to wrestle with that which we know to be true, to embrace the promises given us by the Savior at our worst hour. It's an entirely different proposition when the tragedy befalls someone who does not know the Savior in this way and worse when the individual suffering is just a young child who never even got the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior.  Not every person who suffers a horrific death has the opportunity to find a silver lining as it were in their struggle.

The struggle of believing in a moral god who allows these calamities to happen has merit. I just don't see the alternative without ultimately turning the purpose of this mortality upside down never to be remedied.

Embracing a God who is not known by children and others who suffer does not make sense to me, given our doctrine of the light of Christ. We do not know (experience) what others experience except through empathy, whether that empathy comes by bias or intent. But we do know by precept that everyone has the light of Christ, and to the degree they abide in it, no matter their ignorance of God, the Restored Gospel or lack of the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost, they indeed have a silver lining somewhere within themselves, even if it is only developmental.

For example, focusing on the here and now alone, all little children experience spiritual meaning (the silver lining) in calamity differently than either a mensch (“be men” – as Lehi told his sons) or jerk. They can do this without religion, as Jesus pointed out: “…in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” Matthew 18:10). Also, everyone in some estate beholds the face of God, and they can do it (rather, we can empathize with their experience of it) in one estate if not the other. The salvation and exaltation of all God's children are in part dependent on mourning and rejoicing together, so eventually no one is left out of either a fulness of misery or joy.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

As a moral being, you presumably allow what others might call suffering (horrific or otherwise) that are within your ability to prevent.

Perhaps. This is likely true for most of us.  But how about you be more specific?

 

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

I am thinking of your children who face the consequences of their choices (moral or otherwise). They complain when you, knowing what is good for them in this world, don’t intervene or take too long by their reckoning, to ease their pain.

Do they?  Are you speaking allegorically?  I don't follow your point nor your comment here.

21 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Our religion places this relationship in a far larger perspective of sequential estates (pre-mortal, Edenic, mortal, post-mortal, post-resurrection, etc.).

I know what Mormonism teaches.  I have already said based on my study of this topic I think Mormonism addresses this issue best but still fall short.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Fair enough. But if you have a serious issue with allowing what we call horrific suffering you must have an idea about what constitutes non-horrific suffering? 

We first need to determine what benefit, if any, comes from any suffering at all. I am on board with the idea that challenges that bring us suffering can cause us to become stranger and better humans. The concept applies to many disciplines ad in particular, athletic one. I cycle. A lot. I have done some racing, numerous more than 100 mile endurance rides, Multi day and week long cycling tours and so on. I use training methods and a coach to improve. To improve I have to train. All training is not fun.  High intensity interval work physically hurts. I do this intentionally to get stronger, faster and more fit on the bike and to maintain that fitness.  So sure shallaggnes can give us some. That said the question is if there is a god, why can't we learn what we need to learn without suffering.  According to Mormonism we had agency in the pre earth life.  We did not suffer there as far as we know.  And apparently we could choose good or evil. So here we re now.  What purpose does suffering serve and how does it benefit a child to starve to death?

 

21 hours ago, Vanguard said:

 

 

And why would non-horrific suffering not be included? Much like a theist (myself included) is pushed to the wall about a god who would allow horrific suffering, those who do no accept a god who would allow this to happen are equally faced with a conundrum. What constitutes horrific suffering? And why is the non-horrific variety allowed to remain? Or should all suffering be taken? What is your basis for making the distinction? 

I don't think there is necessarily a bright line but more a spectrum.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps. This is likely true for most of us.  But how about you be more specific?

Do they?  Are you speaking allegorically?  I don't follow your point nor your comment here.

I know what Mormonism teaches.  I have already said based on my study of this topic I think Mormonism addresses this issue best but still fall short.

I specified this estate, you as a parent, and your children. You’ll have to help with additional specifics, so let’s begin with the following and drill down as needed: have your children ever complained about anything you knew they would find unpleasant as you fulfilled your parental role in good faith and love? If so, what was the complaint?

If you are not a parent, has anyone in this estate complained about anything you knew they would find unpleasant as you fulfilled your part in the relationship in good faith? If so, what kind of relationship and what was the complaint?

I have found that people come to realize that our religion often teaches more than meets the eye and can offer a personal understanding that is quite satisfactory and ever improving. 

[MiserereNobis]

So called "natural" evil is often missing in these discussions.

Why did that earthquake have to happen? That storm? That random strike of lightning?

These cannot be explained by the theodicy of allowing agency to humans.

Likewise, for those arguing that suffering is paramount, it is important to ask yourselves why you pray to relieve or avoid the suffering of those you love. My parents recently had covid. I prayed strongly that they would make it through. They did just fine, but why did I ask God to relieve their suffering and the possible suffering of my family if they didn't make it?

I remember my first Intro to Philosophy class when this issue was brought up in depth. The professor asked: what if only one less Jewish child had not died in the holocaust? Would that have changed the whole calculus of suffering, "best of all possible worlds," etc.?

The problem of evil is complex. No theodicy is sufficient, both to the answer and to our actions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

So called "natural" evil is often missing in these discussions.

Why did that earthquake have to happen? That storm? That random strike of lightning?

These cannot be explained by the theodicy of allowing agency to humans.

Likewise, for those arguing that suffering is paramount, it is important to ask yourselves why you pray to relieve or avoid the suffering of those you love. My parents recently had covid. I prayed strongly that they would make it through. They did just fine, but why did I ask God to relieve their suffering and the possible suffering of my family if they didn't make it?

I remember my first Intro to Philosophy class when this issue was brought up in depth. The professor asked: what if only one less Jewish child had not died in the holocaust? Would that have changed the whole calculus of suffering, "best of all possible worlds," etc.?

The problem of evil is complex. No theodicy is sufficient, both to the answer and to our actions.

My understanding is that the natural evils, just as the blessings, have to happen in this world so that at some point, every mortal child of God can be one with Christ in both mourning and rejoicing with each other in the world we will someday share prior to the resurrection. No one is left alone from anyone else and denied this developmental process (though they may opt out).

I believe we pray for and seek to relieve mortal suffering because we are mortal and that is our first step in becoming one with Him as He prayed for in John 17. We submit to His will in our prayers, actions and in accepting the outcomes of these events in recognition that only Christ can relieve both spiritual and temporal suffering. The alleviation of both types of individual suffering lead to the holier oneness which surpasses all understanding. The more we can do as groups in this world better prepares us for the mourning, rejoicing and oneness process.

God called the world good when He created it, and I suppose this includes its meeting the requirements of all stages of His plan, past, present and future. The design permits our intervention to rescue and heal children from concentration and extermination camps and natural disasters, and in preventing natural disasters (at least reducing their effects as much as possible). I believe our correct assessment as to whether He could have done better is part of the calculus of becoming as a child, which is the constant in a world of natural, man-made and spiritually inspired good and instigated evil.

Edited December 4, 2023 by CV75

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

So called "natural" evil is often missing in these discussions.

Why did that earthquake have to happen? That storm? That random strike of lightning?

These cannot be explained by the theodicy of allowing agency to humans.

I think the so called natural "evil" can have a totally different take (in my opinion) if one considers the possibility that God created the earth through a somewhat natural evolutionary process, where events (including genetic defects) really do occur (for the most part) quite naturally.  God may make some adjustments or corrections along the way, but he primarily lets nature run its course.  

And when we were sent down to this fallen world, we also knew the risks of the natural order of events.  But apparently it is worth it for our experience and the development of our social connections with mankind.

I think the response that God gives to Job in the in the last few chapters of the book of Job (38-41) for why bad things happen to good people, also reflects this methodology.  In those chapters all the phenomena of nature are discussed, from mountain goats giving birth to the winds and lightning and the ordinances of heaven.  God shows Job how all of creation is interrelated in complicated and complex ways.  But the message is that in all the suffering and bad things that can happen to people in mortality, we are not alone, and God is there to help us through it all.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So called "natural" evil is often missing in these discussions.

Why did that earthquake have to happen? That storm? That random strike of lightning?

These cannot be explained by the theodicy of allowing agency to humans.

Likewise, for those arguing that suffering is paramount, it is important to ask yourselves why you pray to relieve or avoid the suffering of those you love. My parents recently had covid. I prayed strongly that they would make it through. They did just fine, but why did I ask God to relieve their suffering and the possible suffering of my family if they didn't make it?

I remember my first Intro to Philosophy class when this issue was brought up in depth. The professor asked: what if only one less Jewish child had not died in the holocaust? Would that have changed the whole calculus of suffering, "best of all possible worlds," etc.?

The problem of evil is complex. No theodicy is sufficient, both to the answer and to our actions.

I pray to relieve suffering because I believe that while suffering can serve a godly purpose, God is still very willing to limit our suffering often.

 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I pray to relieve suffering because I believe that while suffering can serve a godly purpose, God is still very willing to limit our suffering often.

Can we persuade God through our prayers to relieve suffering?  If someone is ill God already knows does God not?  He even knew ahead of time.  And he already knows the outcome.  So how can my prayer or yours change anything at all?  If God is often willing to limit our suffering why does God inflict or allow it in the first place? How does he decide when to limit suffering and when not to?  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can we persuade God through our prayers to relieve suffering?  If someone is ill God already knows does God not?  He even knew ahead of time.  And he already knows the outcome.  So how can my prayer or yours change anything at all?  If God is often willing to limit our suffering why does God inflict or allow it in the first place? How does he decide when to limit suffering and when not to?  

Yes, I believe we can.  I can't answer all those questions because I'm not God, but I do like what the Bible Dictionary says about prayer:

Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

[Teancum]

On 12/3/2023 at 4:27 PM, CV75 said:

I specified this estate, you as a parent, and your children. You’ll have to help with additional specifics, so let’s begin with the following and drill down as needed: have your children ever complained about anything you knew they would find unpleasant as you fulfilled your parental role in good faith and love? If so, what was the complaint?

Ok.  Of course there are complaints they have made that they did not like on things that I required and expected out of them.  I don't see the point of specific examples really.  They changed over time based on circumstances, age and maturity. I think I see where you are trying to go with this and it does not work IMO. I did not starve my children and I did not allow them to go without shelter and clothes.  I made sure they obtained good medical care. I did not inflict punishment on them randomly like acts of god or nature do.  Trying to equate human suffering that an alleged God being allows, inflicts, creates, etc is not the same.  And keep in mind there are attributes humans have attributed to a God being that are inconsistent with the suffering we are talking about.

 

On 12/3/2023 at 4:27 PM, CV75 said:

 

I have found that people come to realize that our religion often teaches more than meets the eye and can offer a personal understanding that is quite satisfactory and ever improving. 

As noted I think Mormonism does a better job than most theistic religions do in trying to reconcile evil and suffering with a loving God being.

 

All that said, really what I or you as a human would or would not do for our children or other humans is not relevant. We are tailing about a God described in the monotheistic sacred texts.  And we are talking about whether such a being is moral to allow for the untold human suffering that people can and do go through.  And really can such evil and suffering exist a the same time such a being allegedly exists. I think the answer is more likely than not no, such a being cannot exist and at the same time allow such suffering and evil.  THe fact is we just live in a natural world and our bodies are frial.  They can be harmed in all sorts of ways through accidents and acts of nature.  We can get sick, we die. Humans can be evil of their own accord and inflict harm and sufferung on others as well. Suffering really serves no purpose in and of itself. It simply is as part of the natural world in which we live.

 

 

[Teancum]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

Do you agree though?  Why or why not. 

I understand the benefit of beliefs that help cope with life.  But the problem is where does the line between myth and literalness blur.  It seems to me the Mormonism is a literalistic religion. Is there room for being a member in good standing and yet not accept its literalness? Maybe for some?  For most?  I don't think so.  Does pragmatism in religious belief and practice work?  It can. Is it best?  I don't know?  

 

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

I don't feel any obligation to plant seeds that don't work for me spiritually and personally, regardless of what "most religions" say or do.  After testing seeds, I am only obligated to keep and follow the light that I feel for my own happiness and well-being.

That is fine for you.  But your chosen faith has expectations does it not?  There are expected orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  How does one navigate that if they fall outside of those expected parameters.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

To believe in a God is to be a theist.

Correct.

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

 But even an agnostic who neither believes or disbelieves can at least hope in a God and afterlife.  Hope doesn't require a commitment to belief or disbelief.  That is the difference. 

Ok.  I would call myself an agnostic and I while I am skeptical that there is a God and an afterlife I hope there is. But I am not willing to submit to any belief system that requires me to confirm to dogma and behavior in order to be part of their club.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

You say that you don't want to believe in something that is myth.

Correct.

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

 Are you considering the opposite though?  Is it better to disbelieve in what is actual?

What do you mean when you ask if it is better to disbelieve what is actual?

 

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

that is your prerogative, but I think you would be better served by letting go of any sort of imagined absolute certainty about God, whether he/she/it is myth or not.

I don't claim absolute certainty.  

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

 One can't know with absolute certainty.

 

There are many things and beliefs that cannot be known with certainty that you likely reject. Are there fairies? Are there leprechauns?  Is Zeus a God?  The beliefs of scientology?  Do you take the same position with them?  I could claim any theology I invented out of whole cloth and say the same thing.  How do you know my god invention is a myth or not?  What would you expect to be convinced to at least have faith?

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

 We are therefore left with a choice of hoping or doubting.  What is the harm in hope, even if is myth, honestly?

On a personal level as long as you are not harming others likely no harm other than your own growth and development may be hindered.  For humans taken as a whole, it may be very harmful to our progression and maturing as a species.

 

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

 

 On the other hand, what is the harm in casting off God if he/she/it is actual?  Seems to me the better/happier choice is to choose hope, if you are able.

This is just Pascal's Wager.

On 12/2/2023 at 6:11 PM, pogi said:

I rely on the hope that God is loving, merciful, and just, even in the face of the problem of evil.  I don't have the answers, but I hope that God does.   That helps me personally.  

Requiring absolute certainty before one can hope in something seems foolish to me.  That would result in a hopeless world/life.  No thanks. 

And at times it seems to me believing in something without good evidence is simply wishful thinking. Can that lead to nihilism?  Yes.  Does it have to? No. One actually can live a full life without believing myths.