Why Does God Stay His Hand

[Teancum]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

The atheist creation story would read..."in the beginning there was no word, no human, no purpose to the universe or anything in it."   That is genesis.   "Nothing".  That is the nothing I am talking about.  Any meaning created from that void of meaning is creation ex-nihlo.  Making up meaning from no meaning.  That void and nothingness (in terms of meaning/purpose/intention) is the origin and creator of all that exists - created without purpose or meaning or intention.  Just random chance.   That is our creator that we are one with.  It controls us.  It determines us, not the other way around.  Anything else is a myth.  It IS us.  We are it.  We are that nothingness. The self is an illusion.  Agency is an illusion.  Intention is an illusion.  All that exists is the universe.   Anything that is imagined (like meaning/purpose) by "the self (an illusion)" would itself be nothing more than a random artifact of that meaningless and random illusion.   We are the empty void of an amoral universe.  It is us.   Enjoy!

How the universe came to be as well as how life on earth started does not result in the bleak portrayal you illustrate above.  I am not buying it nor do many philosophers.  Sure the universe does not care about you or me or anything. The universe does not feel or think. It just is. It is a natural thing.  You punctuate the paragraph above with the word enjoy and it seems to be in a cynical way.  Why is that?

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

It's just an illusion.  A myth of morality we create.  There is no good or evil or moral or immoral outside the illusion of the self.  It is all just an artifact of an illusion.  That you think you have "Influence" is an illusion.  Where there is no agency, there is no "influence" - just hard determinism - the universe just doing its random meaningless thing it does with no intentional direction or purpose.  If there is no God, that is you and you are it.  There is nothing else here or there or anywhere. 

 

Yuval Noah Harari argues in his book Sapiens that everything humans have created outside of the natural world is imaginary. A myth if you will.  Religion, a belief  in a god being, nations, borders, laws, constitutions, corporations and so on are all made up.  The only reason they appear "real" is because we respect and honor them.  I think your commentary here is a good example of that.  You seem to very much need to have a god being and some religion and spiritual thing to give your life meaning.  I think most humans are that way.  Our fears of death, lack of purpose, lack of meaning, fear even of freedom, fear of isolation all make us ripe to come up with explanations. Religion fills that need extremely well. 

So yea, I think we all fall into creating some sort of myth in order to have meaning out of nothingness. 

 

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

What is "I" if the self is an illusion?  What is life if the self is an illusion?  What is gratitude if it is just an artifact of an illusion created by a meaningless universe void of any self as we perceive the self to be? 

Sam Harris (and others) argue that the sense of self is an illusion. That there is nothing behind the eyes driving our bodies, making choices and thinking  about things.  

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

 

  You don't have a choice if there is no God.  Enjoy your illusion of self, and life, and as an extension of the self, meaning while that myth/illusion that we choose to believe lasts!  Then what?  You might want to stick that question on a shelf or risk being swallowed up by the all-encompassing void and abyss of meaninglessness of the universe that you (or the illusion of you, anyway) are.   You came from that nothingness.  You are that nothingness.  And you will return to that nothingness.  Everything else is an illusion randomly created by that nothingness.  If something else other than you was created, it wouldn't matter.  You don't matter to the universe.  Nothing matters to the universe.  You are the universe.  Don't think about that too hard, or it will drive you to nihilism.  

Nah I am not buying it.  That may be where you end up but I don't see that for me nor necessarily others.  Though I do know some formerly extremely religious people do sometimes go down that path when the realize that their religious faith was places in something that simply is not real at all.  The women whose website I linked in another post was heading down the path but then found a way to make things work.  And sure, she uses myths and imaginary concepts without a god being.  And I think quite hard about this and feel no where near to embracing nihilism. 

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

Hopefully the above explanation helps.  

Then we are agreed.  That is all I am saying. 

Ok.  Yes we agree that humans create myths to navigate the abyss of lack of meaning and purpose.  The myths can work whether they are real or not.  Some myths are better and some are worse.

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

I wouldn't blame them.  They don't have a choice, after all!   The meaningless universe made them do it.  

The meaningless universe can' make anyone do anything.

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

Does the universe hold a morality?  Don't forget, we are the universe.  It is us.  There is no difference.  Everything else is an illusion.  A myth.  

You lost me on this one.

 

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

He creates his own version and idea of morality out of nothing.  That is his myth, his story that gives him purpose and meaning.   He can't explain how that is anything other than an artifact of a meaningless illusion created by a meaningless universe though.   Realizing the fact that it is all just an illusion can lead one to nihilism.  Realizing that it doesn't matter to the universe what we believe can lead one to despair when they realize that we are the universe, and it is us.  There is nothing else.  The only way to avoid such a nihilistic existence is to embrace myth. 

Ok I am rolling with you on this.

On 12/5/2023 at 2:47 PM, pogi said:

Or, there really is a God.  Suddenly, the self is not an illusion, agency is not an illusion, intention is not an illusion, morality is not an illusion, meaning and purpose is not an artifact of the illusion of self.

I don't make that leap over that large chasm.  Belief in a god being can be, and likely is, as imaginary as everything else you are discussing.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

How the universe came to be as well as how life on earth started does not result in the bleak portrayal you illustrate above. 

I agree that it does not have to end up in such a bleak portrayal.  But I can't see any way around that except through myth. 

I had this in my head when I responded:

Quote

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.

If that is true, I don't see any alternative but nihilism in the face of the bleak cold hard facts of the universe that I outlined in my post.  Without myth, there is no morality.  There is no meaning.  There is no purpose to existence. 

That is why I shoot back when people attack theism for believing in myth as if they are on some sort of higher platform of reason.  Nope.    

It seems that you may be backing down from that position now, so maybe this is all moot, I don't know. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not buying it nor do many philosophers.  Sure the universe does not care about you or me or anything. The universe does not feel or think. It just is. It is a natural thing. 

You say that you are not buying it, but then you seem to agree with it.  I am not sure what you are disagreeing with here.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You punctuate the paragraph above with the word enjoy and it seems to be in a cynical way.  Why is that?

I punctuate it to highlight how sucky the alternative to myth is.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So yea, I think we all fall into creating some sort of myth in order to have meaning out of nothingness. 

I am glad to see that you have changed your mind on this point. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Ok.  Yes we agree that humans create myths to navigate the abyss of lack of meaning and purpose.  The myths can work whether they are real or not.  Some myths are better and some are worse.

What is "better" and "worse" on an individual level is entirely subjective.  It is all relative.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

The meaningless universe can' make anyone do anything.

And if hard determinism is the causal reality of life, then it seems silly to suggest that "some myths are better, and some are worse".   If it is all the same universe creating them without meaning or purpose, how could one be "better' or "worse" except from your own puny little vantage point and seen through your own filter of personal myths that the universe created for you for no good reason at all? 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You lost me on this one.

You asked how Sam Harri's approach is based in myth.  I was simply pointing out that his approach is based in his own morality - which is a myth.  The universe is amoral.  We are the universe.  Therefore, any morality we make up is myth.  Therefore, Sam Harris' approach is based in myth, just like religion is based in myth.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Belief in a god being can be, and likely is, as imaginary as everything else you are discussing.

There you go again.  You seem to be dismissing my beliefs because they are "imaginary".  Yet you can't seem to show me how your foundation of morality, meaning, and purpose is based on anything other than "imaginary" stories or myth that you tell yourself.   You are no different from me in that regard.  

I don't know how you are calculating those odds when you say "likely", but my experience and the experience of the vast majority of humanity tells me there is a God that we can interact with and experience on some level. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that it does not have to end up in such a bleak portrayal.  But I can't see any way around that except through myth. 

I had this in my head when I responded:

If that is true, I don't see any alternative but nihilism in the face of the bleak cold hard facts of the universe that I outlined in my post.  Without myth, there is no morality.  There is no meaning.  There is no purpose to existence. 

That is why I shoot back when people attack theism for believing in myth as if they are on some sort of higher platform of reason.  Nope.    

It seems that you may be backing down from that position now, so maybe this is all moot, I don't know. 

You say that you are not buying it, but then you seem to agree with it.  I am not sure what you are disagreeing with here.  

I punctuate it to highlight how sucky the alternative to myth is.  

I am glad to see that you have changed your mind on this point. 

What is "better" and "worse" on an individual level is entirely subjective.  It is all relative.  

And if hard determinism is the causal reality of life, then it seems silly to suggest that "some myths are better, and some are worse".   If it is all the same universe creating them without meaning or purpose, how could one be "better' or "worse" except from your own puny little vantage point and seen through your own filter of personal myths that the universe created for you for no good reason at all? 

You asked how Sam Harri's approach is based in myth.  I was simply pointing out that his approach is based in his own morality - which is a myth.  The universe is amoral.  We are the universe.  Therefore, any morality we make up is myth.  Therefore, Sam Harris' approach is based in myth, just like religion is based in myth.  

There you go again.  You seem to be dismissing my beliefs because they are "imaginary".  Yet you can't seem to show me how your foundation of morality, meaning, and purpose is based on anything other than "imaginary" stories or myth that you tell yourself.   You are no different from me in that regard.  

I don't know how you are calculating those odds when you say "likely", but my experience and the experience of the vast majority of humanity tells me there is a God that we can interact with and experience on some level. 

 

The problem here is that you both, to me, still believe that science studies "the truth, and things as they are"

Nope.

It studies our perceptions and pretends that those are "things as they are."

That brings us back to arguing about if "red things" are seeing them "as they are", or just as thay appear to us.

Imagine ALL you know was created by your perceptions, just like red is!

It is our minds that creates our individual realities, and we canonize them by agreeing that "red is red". 

But it is all created - organized- in the human mind and expressed in language.

Things "as they are" are perhaps something else.

Suppose the 3 blind men were talking about God and values, good and evil, and the purpose of life.

In that case we don't even have a Red color sample to agree upon!

OF COURSE myth and symbolism will enter the discussion because we don't even have the words that mean the same thing to all.

It is the best set of tools we can possibly have, but often we have to use a wrench as a hammer.

And amazingly, the wrench may work perfectly to drive the nail.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If that is true, I don't see any alternative but nihilism in the face of the bleak cold hard facts of the universe that I outlined in my post.  Without myth, there is no morality.  There is no meaning.  There is no purpose to existence. 

As there could be no agency without the "fall".

Alma 12 again:

""28 And after God had appointed that these things should come unto man, behold, then he saw that it was expedient that man should know concerning the things whereof he had appointed unto them; 29 Therefore he sent angels to converse with them, who caused men to behold of his glory. 30 And they began from that time forth to call on his name; therefore God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption, which had been prepared from the foundation of the world; and this he made known unto them according to their faith and repentance and their holy works. 31 Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good— 32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodness of God." ""

It's right there.

Opposition in all things, dialectical reasoning, " proving contraries"

Good and evil REQUIRE symbols to discuss 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

There you go again.  You seem to be dismissing my beliefs because they are "imaginary".  Yet you can't seem to show me how your foundation of morality, meaning, and purpose is based on anything other than "imaginary" stories or myth that you tell yourself.   You are no different from me in that regard.

More later but I am saying it is ALL imaginary.  Everything. Except for the natural world.  All human constructs are imaginary.

[Teancum]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know how you are calculating those odds when you say "likely", but my experience and the experience of the vast majority of humanity tells me there is a God that we can interact with and experience on some level. 

Also I am not sure how you can empirically quantify the bolded statement above.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Everything. Except for the natural world.

Though you even accept this on faith that it is real

Perhaps we are a collection of energy beings who entertain themselves by creating virtual worlds where we have physical bodies and live out elaborate life scenarios. (Tired of using the Matrix analogy)

Edited December 7, 2023 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is that you both, to me, still believe that science studies "the truth, and things as they are"

Nope.

It studies our perceptions and pretends that those are "things as they are."

That brings us back to arguing about if "red things" are seeing them "as they are", or just as thay appear to us.

Imagine ALL you know was created by your perceptions, just like red is!

It is our minds that creates our individual realities, and we canonize them by agreeing that "red is red". 

But it is all created - organized- in the human mind and expressed in language.

Things "as they are" are perhaps something else.

Suppose the 3 blind men were talking about God and values, good and evil, and the purpose of life.

In that case we don't even have a Red color sample to agree upon!

OF COURSE myth and symbolism will enter the discussion because we don't even have the words that mean the same thing to all.

It is the best set of tools we can possibly have, but often we have to use a wrench as a hammer.

And amazingly, the wrench may work perfectly to drive the nail.

I agree with this.  I should have stated that this is the universe from the perspective of science and the perspective of Sam Harris.  That is the paradigm that I perceive Teancum operating from, so I often speak using the language from the paradigms that others use to communicate easier and to help see why things may be a problem, even from their own paradigm.  Sometimes that is easier than trying to radically alter the paradigm of others all at once.          

[Calm]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Sometimes that is easier than trying to radically alter the paradigm of others all at once.          

Or if your intent is to understand rather than persuade it can be easier as well.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Also I am not sure how you can empirically quantify the bolded statement above.

The vast majority of humans on planet earth are theists who believe in and practice prayer in some form or another, and have been since recorded history.  I thought that was common knowledge. 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Though you even accept this on faith that it is real

Perhaps we are a collection of energy beings who entertain themselves by creating virtual worlds where we have physical bodies and live out elaborate life scenarios. (Tired of using the Matrix analogy)

I think your bolded statement is not a serious argument.  Sure it could all all be a computer simulation. All I can do is judge by what my sensory perception reveals to me as far as the natural world goes.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Teancum

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

The vast majority of humans on planet earth are theists who believe in and practice prayer in some form or another, and have been since recorded history.  I thought that was common knowledge. 

You mentioned experiences.  Sure.  Most believed in some sort of gods.  Human history is a huge graveyard of once accepted supernatural now dead god beings. Your comment was about most humans having some sort experience that confirms their god being faith.  You cannot demonstrate that empirically.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Teancum

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think your bolded statement is not a serious argument.  Sure it could all all be a computer simulation. All I can do is judge by what my sensory perception reveals to me as far as the natural world goes.

This is a philosophy discussion.  It is natural, imo, and serious to be precise in what we can and cannot know.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You mentioned experiences.  Sure.  Most believed in some sort of gods.  Human history is a huge graveyard of once accepted supernatural now dead god beings. Your comment was about most humans having some sort experience that confirms their god being faith.  You cannot demonstrate that empirically.

I am countering your claim that belief in God is likely imaginary, which you likewise cannot demonstrate empirically.  If you used the word "subjective" instead of "imaginary", I would be ok with that.   

I am basing my comment off of the fact that most people on earth are theists, and most religions claim some kind of spiritual evidence via experience with God through prayer, fasting, meditation, yoga, walkabouts, and other numerous rituals that commonly lead to a multitude of different spiritual experiences, inspiration, revelation, dreams, visions, spiritually elevating ayahuasca and other psychedelics where God is commonly reportedly experienced, still small voice, answered prayers by providing rain, food, strength in battle, transcendence, enlightenment, points of spiritual power via the chakras, the third eye, speaking in tongues, and other spiritual manifestations and numerous mystical experiences.  It is not uncommon for deists to claim promptings, guidance even on a daily basis, direction, protection, healings, etc.  I think that spiritual experiences are more commonly claimed by believing theists than not.  Testimony of spiritual experience is not unique to Mormonism.  No, I can't empirically prove that most claim to have had at least some interaction or spiritual experience in their lifetime, but from my personal experience with believers of different sorts, there seems to be a common claim that man can and does interact with the spiritual realm of God.  That is usually the point of it all.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think your bolded statement is not a serious argument.  

Why do you say it is not a serious argument?  I think it is a good point.  Either position is a matter of faith

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

All I can do is judge by what my sensory perception reveals to me as far as the natural world goes.

Exactly!  That is faith!  It is a judgment without certainty.  A choice to believe what you perceive to be true, despite the lack of 100% certainty. 

The same is true in relation to the spiritual world for me.  Same thing. 

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why do you say it is not a serious argument?  I think it is a good point.  Either position is a matter of faith

Exactly!  That is faith!  It is a judgment without certainty.  A choice to believe what you perceive to be true, despite the lack of 100% certainty. 

The same is true in relation to the spiritual world for me.  Same thing. 

I can say that I never had faith until my crisis of faith, now it's all I have. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

You mentioned experiences.  Sure.  Most believed in some sort of gods.  Human history is a huge graveyard of once accepted supernatural now dead god beings. Your comment was about most humans having some sort experience that confirms their god being faith.  You cannot demonstrate that empirically.

I am sorry that you have just implied that most non-believers have bo conscience.

Empiricism? Simply do a poll to find how many have an inborn sense of good and bad.

Secondly, as I have suggested many times before, familiarize yourself with Empirical Theology and how conscience can be defined empirically as God- related qualia.

If you want to talk about philosophy it is useful to study it.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

All I can do is judge by what my sensory perception reveals to me as far as the natural world goes.

Exactly!!

So what sense indicates good from evil?

There is something in your brain that is built in, or evolved, ( or both - doesn't matter) telling you right from wrong, and these are qualia which work in the same way you can tell green from red.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2253779

Edited December 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[gopher]

I think the scriptures and prophets do a pretty good job explaining why bad things happen to good people.  But why do you think God lets good things happen to bad people?  I know some bad people who don't deserve the sweet life they have.  Sure, maybe they'll get punished in the next life, but it seems they aren't learning many important eternal lessons right now.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

I think the scriptures and prophets do a pretty good job explaining why bad things happen to good people.  But why do you think God lets good things happen to bad people? 

As a parent, it is easier for me to understand the unconditional love for a child and desire to bless them with good things, despite their disobedience or rebellion.  I totally understand why he causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.  God is love.  'Nough said!   Reconciling "God is love" with the unspeakable torture and suffering that he withholds his hand from is more difficult for me, personally.

I personally try to avoid the use of the labels "good" or "bad" for people.  I feel that is too heavy and too black and white of a judgment that most don't deserve either way.  Even Jesus resisted being called "good".   If a "bad" person does good things, are they truly "bad" people?  If a "good" person does bad things, are they truly "good" people?  I prefer to judge actions and behaviors rather than the heart, soul, or person themselves - I try to leave that up to God.  Even he waits until after probation to judge in such a way.  We are all sinners to differing degrees. God still loves us unconditionally. 

But I do get the point you make about learning lessons.  Truly, it seems that balanced and fair consequences for behavior in mortality is not something that God really cares about.  I agree that it seems that there would be better ways (watching out for lightning to strike) to teach children by applying consequences differently.    

     

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by pogi

[Teancum]

On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

I am countering your claim that belief in God is likely imaginary,

Well I am mot singling out a God as any more imaginary than anything else outside the natural world. As notes history is a graveyards of dead gods human once worshipped.  I doubt you would recognize any of those dead gods as God would you?

 

On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

 

which you likewise cannot demonstrate empirically. 

I did  not claim that I could.

 

On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

 

If you used the word "subjective" instead of "imaginary", I would be ok with that.   

I am not sure I would use subjective. Imaginary, made up, mythical etc.  Same with all our human constructs.

 

On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

I am basing my comment off of the fact that most people on earth are theists, and most religions claim some kind of spiritual evidence via experience with God through prayer, fasting, meditation, yoga, walkabouts, and other numerous rituals that commonly lead to a multitude of different spiritual experiences, inspiration, revelation, dreams, visions, spiritually elevating ayahuasca and other psychedelics where God is commonly reportedly experienced, still small voice, answered prayers by providing rain, food, strength in battle, transcendence, enlightenment, points of spiritual power via the chakras, the third eye, speaking in tongues, and other spiritual manifestations and numerous mystical experiences. 

Ok.  But really how can we tell what % of humans experience such things in reference to a god being. And the list you provide above believes in god beings, myths and so on that are extremely contradictory. I do believe humans can and do have these kinds of experience. I have had them. Atheists can have them. Do they mean what the belief the recipient of the experience has it literally true?  Does it make it non imaginary?  I think it is telling that when it comes to religion and a belief in a god being, most humans believe what every belief system they are born into.

 

On 12/8/2023 at 11:52 AM, pogi said:

 

It is not uncommon for deists to claim promptings, guidance even on a daily basis, direction, protection, healings, etc.  I think that spiritual experiences are more commonly claimed by believing theists than not.  Testimony of spiritual experience is not unique to Mormonism.  No, I can't empirically prove that most claim to have had at least some interaction or spiritual experience in their lifetime, but from my personal experience with believers of different sorts, there seems to be a common claim that man can and does interact with the spiritual realm of God.  That is usually the point of it all.

I do not dispute any of the above other than it is not necessarily evidence that the god beings related to the experience demonstrates that the belief is not imaginary.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I would use subjective. Imaginary, made up, mythical etc.  Same with all our human constructs.

 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Do they mean what the belief the recipient of the experience has it literally true?  Does it make it non imaginary? 

Since all we know are "human constructs", what is "literally true" as opposed to imaginary?

Is that NOT a human construct itself?

Is it therefore "imaginary"?

But then how can we decide?

If all is a construct, what is "true" vs "imaginary" ?

If all is a human construct, it takes a while for it to soak in.

"Literal correspondence to the world" disappears.

Poof.

Welcome to my world where everything is based on sentences as paradigms.

Edited December 9, 2023 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since all we know are "human constructs", what is "literally true" as opposed to imaginary?

Is that NOT a human construct itself?

Have you seen the TV show, "The Irrational"?  It's new (on NBC), a 2023 show.  You might like it if you haven't seen it (my wife and I are enjoying it).

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Have you seen the TV show, "The Irrational"?  It's new (on NBC), a 2023 show.  You might like it if you haven't seen it (my wife and I are enjoying it).

No,- thanks, we'll check it out!

I know you know this but here's the problem for those who don't:

To know if something is what it actually is, one would have to SEE simultaneously A-"things as they are" AND B- "what humans can only see" at the same time AND compare them.  Does one "correspond" to the other??

The problem is that we can ONLY see B.!! 

We will never then see A- therefore the correspondence theory of truth cannot itself be true- there is no way it can be checked to understand!!

We just have to check each paradigm pragmatically and functionally to see if it gives us the desired effects/affects we desire

To see it otherwise is IRRATIONAL 🥺😉

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[gopher]

On 12/8/2023 at 6:29 PM, pogi said:

I personally try to avoid the use of the labels "good" or "bad" for people.  I feel that is too heavy and too black and white of a judgment that most don't deserve either way.  Even Jesus resisted being called "good".   If a "bad" person does good things, are they truly "bad" people?  If a "good" person does bad things, are they truly "good" people?  I prefer to judge actions and behaviors rather than the heart, soul, or person themselves - I try to leave that up to God.  Even he waits until after probation to judge in such a way.  We are all sinners to differing degrees. God still loves us unconditionally. 

You do realize I was trying to be clever in switching around the wording of the question "why do bad things happen to good people?", not to spark a discussion on labels or judging?  I'm didn't come up with the wording of that question.  I agree God loves everyone unconditionally.

But I find it interesting to try to understand how God works with those who willfully reject Him and Jesus Christ.  God still wants them to change and become obedient so they can be exalted someday, correct?  I've heard many believers testify that it was through their adversities they came to know the love God has for them.  So how can God reclaim those who reject Him when they seem to have everything in life go their way and seem to experience little adversity if that truly is a way to experience God's love?