Originally posted by DragonFriend
Then I suggest you do more research on the life of Jesus.
First, He did give us adequate reason to worship Him. He said He was equal to God and then did things to prove His statements.
Second, you can thumb your nose at the being that created your life if you want, but it's only proper to worship what gave you life (and no, I'm not talking about you ld.
The trichotomy isn't a false one. If you do more research you'll understand why.

DF

Second, you can thumb your nose at the being that created your life if you want, but it's only proper to worship what gave you life

I disagree. Many theists seem to make the following argument:

1. God exists.
2. Therefore one ought to worship God.

This argument is not even valid without an additional normative premise resembling something like

1'. If God exists, then one ought to worship God.

This premise is usually just taken for granted by the theist, but I do not think it is obvious AT ALL. I have never seen adequate support for Premise 1', and, as such, I consider myself apathetic, rather than atheistic, with respect to the problem of His existence. It is a problem of great philosophical importance, but I don't see how it carries any practical implications -- ie., even if God exists, I don't see how that carries any direct implications concerning how I ought to live my life.

Premise 1' needs to be sufficiently supported, otherwise your acceptance of it is arbitrary. What is your support for Premise 1' ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Premise 1' needs to be sufficiently supported, otherwise your acceptance of it is arbitrary. What is your support for Premise 1' ?

It's that feeling you get, you know...when you see a beautiful sunset, or marvel at the multitude of stars, or wonder at the complexity of an ant colony. It couldn't have just happened, could it have? I mean, after all...a tornado doesn't careen through a junkyard and leave a 1969 cherry red Mustang convertible behind, does it?

Originally posted by DragonFriend
Then I suggest you do more research on the life of Jesus.
First, He did give us adequate reason to worship Him. He said He was equal to God and then did things to prove His statements.
Second, you can thumb your nose at the being that created your life if you want, but it's only proper to worship what gave you life (and no, I'm not talking about you ...[text shortened]... ld.
The trichotomy isn't a false one. If you do more research you'll understand why.

DF

Well, whether he gave us sufficient reason to believe in him is an open question, since the accuracy of the textual 'evidence' for Jesus' divinity (his claims, the miracles, etc.) is an open question.

I see no reason to think that my life was created by God, and even if that was correct, this doesn't entail that I ought to worship God. Perhaps I ought to be thankful, but this is not the same as being reverent.

Again, Jesus may have believed that he was God, but that doesn't entail that he was a lunatic. Many mystics have made such claims, and it is certainly an open question whether they are lunatics (as opposed, say, to spiritually advanced folk who happen to have a mistaken belief or happen to speak loosely).

And, again, if Jesus didn't actually think that disbelief would result in damnation, then his causing people to belief that he was God could very well not be demonic. After all, since we arfe in this scenario attributing lies to Jesus, then why can't we attribute one more to him? He could have thought that convincing them that he was divine would help them spiritually or politically or psychologically, or...

Originally posted by David C
It's that feeling you get, you know...when you see a beautiful sunset, or marvel at the multitude of stars, or wonder at the complexity of an ant colony. It couldn't have just happened, could it have? I mean, after all...a tornado doesn't careen through a junkyard and leave a 1969 cherry red Mustang convertible behind, does it?

Sob, sob. You had me at "ant colony".

I mean, after all...a tornado doesn't careen through a junkyard and leave a 1969 cherry red Mustang convertible behind, does it?

No. Typically speaking, tornadoes leave behind gratuitous pain, suffering, death, and general catastrophic destruction. Now that is some hard, incontrovertible proof for an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sob, sob. You had me at "ant colony".

[b]I mean, after all...a tornado doesn't careen through a junkyard and leave a 1969 cherry red Mustang convertible behind, does it?

No. Typically speaking, tornadoes leave behind gratuitous pain, suffering, death, and general catastrophic destruction. Now that is some hard, incontrovertible proof for an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God.[/b]

So, presumably, God is good for the summer breeze, tropical climates and the dew on the grass, but evil for stiff winds in historically tornado-prone areas?
Since when is God the weatherman? It is true that Jesus Christ controls history overall, but there are many variables which are not the firect result of His action. But if we're going to tag God with the weather, why stop there? Why not blame even our own actions on Him, too?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, presumably, God is good for the summer breeze, tropical climates and the dew on the grass, but evil for stiff winds in historically tornado-prone areas?
Since when is God the weatherman? It is true that Jesus Christ controls history overall, but there are many variables which are not the firect result of His action. But if we're going to tag God with the weather, why stop there? Why not blame even our own actions on Him, too?

For those who claim that God exists, and further that He is omnipotent and omniscient (and exercises these capabilities), then their God is responsible for absolutely everything. There is really no other way to see it. So "why stop there?" indeed. Such a God (as an entity to be worshipped) is a silly construction. I am not saying that He doesn't exist: only that if He does exist, then He is a monster. As an entity to be worshipped, He falls very far from the mark.

EDIT: It may simply be case of shooting too high. By doting on their God so, and trying to demonstrate that He is oh so worthy, they define Him far too much responsibility. Then they appear flummoxed when I (and others) label Him callous at best.

Originally posted by LemonJello
For those who claim that God exists, and further that He is omnipotent and omniscient (and exercises these capabilities), then their God is responsible for absolutely everything. There is really no other way to see it. So "why stop there?" indeed. Such a God (as an entity to be worshipped) is a silly construction. I am not saying that He doesn't exist ...[text shortened]... exist, then He is a monster. As an entity to be worshipped, He falls very far from the mark.

You're taking the rightful claims out of perspective, leaving nothing but exaggeration.
While God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and etc., there are other aspects of his essence that must be considered, as well, each in their proper perspective.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... if we're going to tag God with the weather, why stop there? Why not blame even our own actions on Him, too?

That's a great place to make a deliberate and conscious start in taking responsibility for your own life - or the lack thereof. 😀 When you realize how seriously poorly you are behaving in God's eyes, well...

The eye with which we see God is the same eye with which God sees us. Meister Eckhart

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're taking the rightful claims out of perspective, leaving nothing but exaggeration.
While God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and etc., there are other aspects of his essence that must be considered, as well, each in their proper perspective.

If you claim that He exercises omnipotence and omniscience, then I maintain that He is responsible for everything that happens.

For any event that occurs:
He either directly caused it or He didn't. If He did, then He is responsible for it. If He didn't, then it is still the case that He knew it would transpire; it is also the case that He could have easily* prevented it, and He knew that as well; further, it is also the case that He knew perfectly the outcome of the event. That right there is already a pretty good foundation for saying that he is responsible for every event that occurs. It would seem that nothing can just spuriously occur against His will.

If you want to then say that it may be the case that He has some greater plan that we cannot possibly fathom, and that He is still always acting toward the greater good, blah, blah, free will, blah, blah, then whatever. Go ahead and play the "God works in mysterious ways" card, if it makes you happy. How mysterious do you have to be to allow and/or cause The Holocaust to transpire in the name of greater good? Or how mysterious is it to say that all the earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes that occur are in the service of the greater good? At any rate, the answer won't change the fact that such a God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs (and He knows it).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Just how hard does an omnipotent creature have to work? It would seem the answer is 'not at all', logical possibility permitting.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If you claim that He exercises omnipotence and omniscience, then I maintain that He is responsible for everything that happens.

For any event that occurs:
He either directly caused it or He didn't. If He did, then He is responsible for it. If He didn't, then it is still the case that He knew it would transpire; it is also the case that He could hav have to work? It would seem the answer is 'not at all', logical possibility permitting.

Let me try something, LJ. I’ll start with this quote from a post I made to Skipper in the “An Honest Question” (re the Job story).

Since I take a monistic viewpoint on all this, my only conclusion can be:

“Why do bad things happen to good people?”

“I don’t know. That’s just the way it is. I’ll take my portion of life as a blessing anyway—e.g., like Camus, I choose to live, and to live with awe and passion, in the face of the apparent absurdities of existence, rather than commit suicide.”

Now, it seems to me that a theist (or an atheist) can take the same stance. Camus’ argument, it seems to me, does not remove the “God (or the cosmos) moves in mysterious ways” line of thinking generally. Nor does it relieve the mystery—or the absurdity, or the absurdity of the mystery—by offering some hopeful analysis, either religious or scientific or philosophical. He rejects the metaphysical “leaps” of theists and atheists alike.

I maintain that part of the absurdity (using that term strictly in the Camusian sense) is that the ground of being is essentially ineffable. Folks like Hafiz or the roshis or the kabbalists know they are engaging in the dance of the absurd when they attempt it anyway (even using the absurd to “eff” the fact of its ineffability)—it is a Sisyphean venture, and yet one that can be aesthetically and spiritually/mystically* rich. Even compelling.

One can “worry about that moon;” one can simply sing and dance under that moon; one can also construct a complex and wonderful symbolic sand-painting mandala with the moon as its subject—and then wipe it out! As the Tibetans do.

Any of that make sense to you?


* Using those terms in a non-supernatural “Zen” sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
Let me try something, LJ. I’ll start with this quote from a post I made to Skipper in the “An Honest Question” (re the Job story).

Since I take a monistic viewpoint on all this, my only conclusion can be:

“Why do bad things happen to good people?”

“I don’t know. That’s just the way it is. I’ll take my portion of life as a blessing anyway—e.g., li ...[text shortened]... .

Any of that make sense to you?


* Using those terms in a non-supernatural “Zen” sense.

Your posts are good reading. I cannot remember what first prompted me to read The Myth of Sisyphus, but I really do immensely enjoy the work of Camus.

To me, the absurdity of life seems always imminent and palpable, to the extent that I regularly encounter it. There does seem to be an ineffable aspect to it (which, of course, I cannot explain), but moreover, I associate the absurd with the seeming lack of any grander scheme -- essentially, the feeling that there is no ultimate purpose. Let me throw in a couple scattered quotes so that I can then go on to try to make a couple points:

"You have already grasped that Sisyphus is the absurd hero. He is, as much through his passions as through his torture. His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing. This is the price that must be paid for the passions of this earth."

"Then Sisyphus watches the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit. He goes back down to the plain. It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me....Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory."

First, note that he says that the Sisyphean adventure is the "price" that must be paid for living life with passion. Indeed, I think if one strives to live life with veracity and passion, he will inevitably encounter the absurd at every turn. When you say that one has foreknowledge of engaging in the "dance of the absurd" (and yet they dance on) -- yes, I think that is precisely the idea. Sisyphus possesses a "lucidity" which highlights the fact that he knows full well that this is a dance of absurd proportions. And yet, Camus remarks that this is, in part, exactly what "crowns his victory". So I agree fully with you that Camus is not interested at all in relieving the absurdity by any superficial means -- I say 'superficial' in that they relieve us of the burden that we must carry alone.

Personally, I think I have gotten over the natural longing to relieve the absurd, to place labels where none are warranted, etc. Sisyphus on the descent is exactly how I feel much of the time: whether it is rolling a rock or dancing beneath the moon, there is a lucidity and a consciousness that wonders what is actually, or ultimately, being accomplished. I think it is clear that we are thrust into existence, and moreover, that we are thrust into an absurd existence. Now some people won't like this: but it is just my conjecture that it is the confrontation between a passionate mind and the absurd that gives rise to theology. And it would seem hopelessly coincidental that nearly all of the cookie cutter belief systems offer analysis that is fundamentally "hopeful", as you put it, and serve to relieve the absurd. Although I have seen forms of agnostic theism (I guess I would call it that) that do not profess to alleviate the absurd.

In terms of why bad things happen to good people: Not sure. It seems to just be the way of the absurd. If there is no ultimate plan, then there is certainly no ultimate plan that regulates the apportionment of good and bad things.

Concerning the "mysterious ways of God", I agree fully that the theist should be free to NOT remove the absurd, and to maintain the mysteries therein (in fact, it seems only natural to me to not deny the absurd aspects that seem so palpable). My beef above is only with the particular theist who, for whatever reason, wishes to define his God in a completely irrational way. If he says that God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, AND omnibenevolent, then that has serious implications concerning how we should expect the world to be. And when the world does not at all conform to these expectations, this theist has to resort to saying that the ways of God are "mysterious". If that is true, then we should just call Him mysterious from the get-go and not pretend like He is 'omnibenevolent' by any reasonable interpretation of that term.

My thoughts are really scattered here. Hope some of this makes sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Following your recommendation, I have acquired a copy of Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy, although I have not had a chance to sit down with it yet.

Originally posted by LemonJello

He either directly caused it or He didn't.
Direct, or immediate, is different than indirect, or mediate. For instance, God immediately created Adam, but mediately creates man. As such, a view of a detail cannot yield a view of the whole. Part, yes, but not whole. The distinction must be made for anything to make sense, and I will do what I can to relay it clearly in these next few posts.

If He did, then He is responsible for it.
Ultimately, yes. This is why He will receive all the glory. Is He receiving all the glory now? Yet so masterful, so all-powerful, He is being (and will be shown to be) praised by the wrath of man.

If He didn't, then it is still the case that He knew it would transpire; it is also the case that He could have easily* prevented it, and He knew that as well; further, it is also the case that He knew perfectly the outcome of the event.
We have established that He is ultimately responsible, and here, even further, that He knew it before-hand. Think about that: He knew, before there was Time, before the foundations of the world, that two no-accounts would be quibbling about His essence/benevolence/character at this stage and time, and He went ahead and created this whole thing anyway.

It would seem that nothing can just spuriously occur against His will.
You are correct, sir. No event--- not even Lucifer's rebellion which led to Satan's rulership over this planet--- was not foreknown, or unplanned. He created the whole thing, has power over the whole thing, and will ultimately receive praise, honor and glory for Who He is, as revealed by the whole thing.

He has some greater plan that we cannot possibly fathom, and that He is still always acting toward the greater good
You demand to know God's greater plan, but you start from a place that will never produce an answer; at least, not in this life. The emphasis is too great on the insignificant, and not enough on the significant.
Using chess as an illustration (obviously limited), you see what you regard as a blunder, a misstep by the Grand Master. Even His opponent seizes upon the supposed mistake and appears to be working the same toward his advantage. Unbeknownst to you or the opponent, that blunder leads to ultimate--- and resounding--- victory, just a few short moves away. The opponent was (in relation) playing checkers, while the Grand Master was playing chess.
What appears to be weakness is, instead, mind-blowing strength. If you wish to know a player's pattern of thought, you must watch their games. God has revealed His character in as comprehensive manner as He deems necessary, for proper conclusions to be drawn. Should improper conclusions be drawn, something is amiss. I posit that what is missing is not on the side of the Revealer, nor on what is revealed.

Or how mysterious is it to say that all the earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes that occur are in the service of the greater good?
Again, you place too much emphasis on the temporary, and not enough on the permanent. Without the full body of evidence, you wish to declare a verdict.
Instead of offering the plethora of (declared) bad occurences, i.e., catastrophic weather events, the Holocaust, narrow it down to just the one person whom you have control over: you.
When you begin to see the totality of God's essence, you will begin to see that the affront of the Holocaust on the dignity of man is chicken feed compared to the blasphemy that even one fallen creature represents in the presence of God's perfection.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Second, you can thumb your nose at the being that created your life if you want, but it's only proper to worship what gave you life

I disagree. Many theists seem to make the following argument:

1. God exists.
2. Therefore one ought to worship God.

This argument is not even valid without an additional normative premise resembling somethi ...[text shortened]... ted, otherwise your acceptance of it is arbitrary. What is your support for Premise 1' ?[/b]

Let's start with the practical implications. If the Christians are right, then our lives continue after our bodies die. And that life is eternal and we will exist in either a very good or a very bad place. There's only two choices. The good news is that you can choose, during your physical life, which type of eternal life you get to have. So what you do with the life you are now living has a direct impact on life you will live for all eternity.
If the Christians are wrong and God doesn't exist, then all that has happened is that we Christians have wasted our time trying to learn how to live in a way that gets along with others better.
So from a practical point of view, life after death is not a question one should be apathetic about because for one outcome is doesn't matter, but for the other it matters greatly.

Support for the existance of God.
If you're truly asking, I'd suggest some books by authors who were once in your state. Lee Strobel comes to mind. He was an atheist reporter who's wife get into Christianity and he decided to prove to her that she was wrong. Another skeptic would be Josh McDowell (josh.org).
One of the biggest things for me is the fact that no archeological dig has ever contradicted a Bible story. There's only one way that can happen and that's if the stories in the Bible are actually true.

DF

Originally posted by LemonJello
Your posts are good reading. I cannot remember what first prompted me to read The Myth of Sisyphus, but I really do immensely enjoy the work of Camus.

To me, the absurdity of life seems always imminent and palpable, to the extent that I regularly encounter it. There does seem to be an ineffable aspect to it (which, of course, I cannot explain) hilosophy[/i], although I have not had a chance to sit down with it yet.

Your posts are good reading.

Thanks. Mutual. You help me un-muddle my own thinking.

I associate the absurd with the seeming lack of any grander scheme -- essentially, the feeling that there is no ultimate purpose.

Yet, there does seem to be a grand wholeness to it all—it is cosmos rather than chaos; and, of course, one might quite rationally say, “So what? If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to think about it.” But recognition of the wholeness is what impels us to art: no awe, no art.

I remember the first time I saw a real Jackson Pollock hanging in a gallery (and not a picture in a book). I was stunned. Here was this huge painting, in garish colors, on a frameless canvas, with absolutely no recognizable forms, even symbolic. And yet it stopped me dead in my tracks. I stared at it for a long time: I moved forward, I stepped back, I moved to one side... Suddenly it struck me: harmony! It somehow was all in balance: the contrasting colors, the swirls and squiggles. Amazing. (Later I read that Pollock actually painted fractals, and that that is one way they now test to see if a purported Pollock is authentic or a forgery.)

Which brings me to the “ultimate purpose” question. I agree. That is partly why I tend to put so much emphasis on aesthetics—by which I mean something deeper than preference or entertainment.

Personally, I think I have gotten over the natural longing to relieve the absurd, to place labels where none are warranted, etc.

I still have a tendency to snare myself—lost in my measurements of, and speculations about, “that moon.” I begin to fall into a trap of taking it too seriously (seriousness is not the same as sincerity, as Alan Watts pointed out), and losing the dance. I fall down... Good time to read Hafiz, or Rebbe Nachman... Or sing a Hasidic niggun... Get up and begin to dance again...

Now some people won't like this: but it is just my conjecture that it is the confrontation between a passionate mind and the absurd that gives rise to theology.

And theology can be like art—or it can become, as you say, “cookie-cutter.” There is no “unengaged” life, even for a hermit-monk; all living involves encounter, confrontation, argument, intimacy—the dance. Therefore, for example, I reject the notion of “one-way” revelation. Even in a mystical experience of the ground, the “passionate mind” is immediately translating into symbols that allow it to attempt to express the inexpressible, to untangle the existentially entangled—just as the brain immediately translates the sensory data of light into forms and images. That is why I say that the absurd is not escapable via mysticism (again, using that word in the “technical,” non-occultic sense of the standard literature); there is no “leap” there either, though there is depth. (I am reminded here of a Talmudic story of four rabbis who enter “the orchard” (pardes of mystical experience; I won’t go into detail yet, but I think it is translatable in terms of the absurd.)

This also is related to descriptions of living “in the wilderness” (in my “A Playful midrash for Shabbos” thread—shameless plug).

Does any of that make sense? I’m really just free-associating a bit “out loud.” Thanks for stimulating that.

In terms of the Sisyphus myth, I am reminded of another rabbinical aphorism: “You are not required to complete the task, but neither are you permitted to withdraw from it.” (Rabbi Tarfon, in Pirkei Avot, 2:21)

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you sorted a whole lot out with those two posts (so, rec’d). I think there may be a few other elements to consider, though.

(1) From the point of view of perspectivism, none of us have a “God’s eye view” on any of it—no “view from nowhere,” I think one philosopher called it, or even really a view from “elsewhere.” I always have to admit that m ...[text shortened]... y rejection of supernatural theism is).

I don’t think any of this contradicts what you wrote.

Actually, it does.

1. Whatever our "perspective" on Jesus, he is either the Son of God or he is not. This is a matter of objective, absolute truth. Whether we have a "God's eye view" or not does not matter - the two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true.

2. To say that something is ineffable is to say that it can never be adequately expressed in words. It does not mean that the words we use are false, or that contradictory assertions can be made about the ineffable.