Beyond God and Evil

[earnest_seeker]

First of all, there can't be a "most" perfect anything, because perfection isn't comparative. Something is either perfect or it is not.

Yes, fair enough, I phrased that poorly.

Why is it so difficult to understand that in a world of space and time, there can be no such thing as perfection?

I don't understand. Please explain.

God has chosen us to be the instruments of this process of perfecting. We are not bystanders. We participate.

And God does not participate? Or He does, but only sometimes? And if only sometimes, then what criteria does He use to decide when to participate?

Philosophaster: So the reason that God does not intervene to stop rapists and murderers is because he is supremely good, right? And if some guy on the street sees a rape in progress and fails to intervene, then he is good by virtue of not using any force to stop it, right?

brokenhead: You could not develop as a person if there were never an opportunity for you to intervene, Philo.

The implication that I get from your response is that you believe that God permits suffering in order for other people to grow by opposing it. So where does God draw the line then? If someone's hand is held in the fire, and an onlooker has an opportunity to oppose it, does God say "Burn a while longer, I'm waiting for this person to grow"? How about if someone is raped and an onlooker is too scared to intervene? Does God say "Take the assault, maybe this onlooker will eventually decide to grow up and help you"? At what point exactly does an omnipotent being become culpable for the preventable crimes committed on His watch?

[earnest_seeker]

By the way, I just wanted to add that omniscience really comes along for the ride with omnipotence. There's no need to specify it as an extra power. If a being is all-powerful, then that being possesses the power to know everything (omniscience).

[Philosophaster]

The other problem that I see with your solution is that it's hard to believe that this universe is the most perfect that it can be. From the Christian perspective, a place exists where its inhabitants experience perfect bliss i.e heaven. So why the need for earth and hell? Why not just heaven? Wouldn't that more perfect that including realms of suffering?

Yes, I think most people would agree, which is why I pointed out previously how hard it is to take that "solution" seriously in the face of all the suffering that actually occurs.

You could not develop as a person if there were never an opportunity for you to intervene, Philo.

Okay, let's work with a hypothetical.

Wouldn't I still have plenty of opportunity to intervene in bad situations and grow even if God subtracted all the rapes and murders out of the world? A world where people were free to do whatever they wanted except rape and murder would certainly be a better one than what we have now -- I hope you can agree. And there would still be an enormous amount of freedom for us to learn and grow. So, the question comes: why not create that world instead?

[earnest_seeker]

Yes, I think most people would agree, which is why I pointed out previously how hard it is to take that "solution" seriously in the face of all the suffering that actually occurs.

Right, you wrote "In the face of things like genocide, this idea offends just about every empathetic and moral instinct that we have, of course". Sorry, I missed that. So, you weren't actually promoting a solution, you were just offering the best that might exist, poor as it is.

brokenhead: You could not develop as a person if there were never an opportunity for you to intervene, Philo.

Philosophaster: [...] Wouldn't I still have plenty of opportunity to intervene in bad situations and grow even if God subtracted all the rapes and murders out of the world?

Well, I'm not sure. It depends on what extent you're suggesting that God remove crime from the world. In the extreme, you would have no opportunity to intervene in bad situations because there simply wouldn't be any bad situations. However, I agree that a world like that is more desirable than the world that we have now, and, for an omnipotent being, achievable, so, I agree with this statement of yours:

A world where people were free to do whatever they wanted except rape and murder would certainly be a better one than what we have now -- I hope you can agree.

I'd also like to answer this question of yours:

And there would still be an enormous amount of freedom for us to learn and grow. So, the question comes: why not create that world instead?

There is really only one logical answer, assuming that God is omnibenevolent: because He didn't have the power to do so. In other words, that God is not omnipotent. Of course the alternative is to speculate that God, whilst omnipotent, is not omnibenevolent, but that's just too offensive to take seriously.

[brokenhead]

There is really only one logical answer, assuming that God is omnibenevolent: because He didn't have the power to do so. In other words, that God is not omnipotent. Of course the alternative is to speculate that God, whilst omnipotent, is not omnibenevolent, but that's just too offensive to take seriously.

To the extent that people themselves stop rape and murder is the extent that God interferes. He has delegated his powers out into his created entities while retaining authority and the power to rescind at his will. He is imperfect to the extent that he has created imperfect beings to whom he delegates reponsibility and local authority. "What ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."

To argue otherwise is foolish. We have what we have. We are intended to be participants, not mere spectators. We are here to act on God's behalf. That is our true pupose.

[mikiel]

Matt:

Let's assume that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, that everything he does is good and let's ask the question: why do bad things happen?

So we're back to the 'good ol' classic, "the problem of evil."
I will be essentially repeating my reply to Iolaus a few weeks ago from the free will vs determinism context.

First, God is *omnipresent* consciousness, Whose body is the whole cosmos. So we are divine body parts and *potential* participants in divine consciousness present in all entities.
"Potential" is the key word. We can also ignore our divine nature and commit obviously "evil" acts. This is the nature of free will. We *can* act from egocentricity, selfishness and manifest atrocities. We *can* ignore our divine nature and be totally brutal to our fellow man. Free will is a true *gift* not a ploy programed by a deceitful Creator Who wants us to have the illusion of free will while he pulls our strings with a Machiavellian grin while He "makes us" commit these atrocities against each other.

It is true freedom to ignore our divine nature here, folks. And when we do, we create hell on Earth for ourselves and our victims.

So, the Creator (as Kosmos) does not micro-manage human affairs, but rather manifests locally as conscious beings, with *delegated* responsibility for actions out of true freedom.

Truly we are all local manifestations of God. Some embrace our true Identity ("Thy will be done") and some *choose* to ignore this deepest and most true essence and manifest evil, just for the sadistic personal power trip... just for the *hell* of it. It is our option to turn our backs on the Light, the Source, and engage in egoic shadow-play in the *chosen* roles of actual, real-live demons.
The present world atrocities are the result of the latter *choice*, individually and collectively.
What is your (generally speaking) choice?
(End of sermon... Takes off robe, leaves the pulpit, shaking hands with the repentant congregation.)

mikiel

[Iolaus]

Hello Earnest Seeker,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful attitude. I don't know why I became so strident. And, I should not have used the word blasphemy, which implies dogma, when I meant slander. I see the character of God slandered, mostly by religion, and it does grieve me.

I think that the words used, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. are often used in a magical way, not a realistic way. God is omnipotent because God is within everything. But I do not suppose that God can do various impossible things by waving his magical wand.

But generally I do find the problem of evil as people present it fairly immature, coming from a spiritually childish and mentally shallow position.

From the Christian perspective, a place exists where its inhabitants experience perfect bliss i.e heaven. So why the need for earth and hell? Why not just heaven? Wouldn't that more perfect that including realms of suffering?

But I find the Christian perspective often childish and shallow. Heaven and hell may be better and worse in other areas within the galaxy, sure, but heaven and hell are primarily states of mind, perception and behavior. We must LEARN to live in heaven, by learning consequences of our behavior, desiring to be like God, being inspired to emulate God, and allowing God inside of us.

You sound like a Christian, so, from the Christian perspective, my opinion is that the above is what being born again really means, and it is accomplished by being birthed via the Holy Spirit, and not by some decision to accept the teachings of Christ, or a belief in him. That is something different.

But - to answer your question. I am surprised you missed it. I already answered it but let me try again.

Suppose that our lives and people's souls can be likened to toddlers in a sandbox. One toddler sees a tonka truck and he wants it, goes over and yanks it (these are actual scenarios I have witnessed) but the little boy playing with it does not let go. Therefore, the first toddler gets a brick and hits the other boy on the head. This hurts pretty much, he runs off and the toddler who hit him is quite satisfied and takes the truck and plays with it. No one but me sees this.

Later, the boy who hit the other one, gets sand thrown in his face by someone else. His mother is now there, and he runs crying to her, no only in pain but as it seemed to me, utterly dejected at the injustice and cruelty that has just been visited upon him. Naturally, he has no insight whatsoever that he 'deserved' it, at least in the sense that he dishes out the same when it suits him.

If God stopped us from learning by intervening so that we could never grab trucks and get sand thrown at us, we would forever remain just as those toddlers. What kind of heaven would it be if all the people you are in heaven with would be perfectly ready to grab your truck and hit you on the head with a brick to get it, only God prevents it? Forever and ever and ever.

And, I'll tell you something else that might not have really registered with you, because it won't until you reach a certain level of attainment, but the joy of heaven has not only to do with God, and with the nice surroundings, but it has a tremendous amount to do with the other beings - people - who are there with you. Until your own soul exists in a heavenly state of perception, and until you have companions who are also that way, there is no heaven.

Heaven isn't a gated community in the sky.

Suffering is temporary. Most of it is our fault and not God's. No matter how important the suffering seems to us now, it will vanish like smoke and its importance will vanish.

Think again, too, about the notion that the use of force or manipulation is generally an evil thing, done by beings who have their own interests at stake. It is extremely loving, benevolent and accepting of God to allow us to be exactly who we are at every moment.

All things return to God. There is no need for hurry or angst.

Wouldn't you be better off to honestly acknowledge this contradiction, and to attempt to reform your view of God, rather than to attempt to (inadequately) defend it, and to rail out emotionally against anyone who points out flaws in your conception?

Yes, it would, but I don't see a contradiction.

[Iolaus]

Wouldn't I still have plenty of opportunity to intervene in bad situations and grow even if God subtracted all the rapes and murders out of the world? A world where people were free to do whatever they wanted except rape and murder would certainly be a better one than what we have now -- I hope you can agree. And there would still be an enormous amount of freedom for us to learn and grow. So, the question comes: why not create that world instead?

People like to dream up exceptions to freedom of speech, such as hate speech laws, which are causing such ridiculous fiascos in Canada.

You either have free speech or you don't. There's no partial free speech. God isn't a security guard.

And, the minute we get the world acceptable to Philo, someone else will want it different. Give 'em an inch and they'll want a mile.

Lazy! Childish and lazy!

I am truly perplexed, earnestseeker, that this most obvious thing is so difficult to convey!

We have holocausts - did God cause them? Of course not! WE DID. And we will cease living in this semi-hell the instant that our interiors are no longer hell-like!

Hell isn't a place. It's who we are inside. The holocausts are an inevitable manifestation of our interior state of being. We should be a little more embarrassed and a little less blaming of God.

Human beings are not worms on a worm farm. Your destiny befits your freedom and the difficulty of the process.

This is a fundamental spiritual hurdle. There is no adulthood without the accepting of responsibility.

Living in hell is a choice, we are free at any moment to leave it behind.

[Matt Gregory]

The question of power cannot be asked in the same domain as the question of evil. So it's a basic category error.

Well, think about this because I think this is the crux of the whole thing: If some evil is going to happen and someone has knowledge of it and the power to stop it but he just doesn't stop it then what would you say? Did he cause it or not?

Good and Evil has a lot to do with the relation between different power potentials. For example god is Good because of his unchallenged power. Weak groups in a society can become Evil because of their lack of power. Check out the Axis of Evil countries nowadays, basically all extremely weak and hardly threatening countries, also because of their relative political isolation making their condemnation doable.

Forgot to leave in:

Your assertion that the happening will be something evil - therein lies also your assertion of power or at least becomes a power difference visible.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, actually. "Good" to me means, in general, "something beneficial". The degree of benefit doesn't matter as long as it's in the black. "Power" enters into the equation because for something beneficial to happen, there has to be a change from non-beneficial happenings. Hence, there has to be the power to bring about that change. That's how power and good & evil relate with each other. So, I don't see what category error you're talking about.

[Philosophaster]

People like to dream up exceptions to freedom of speech, such as hate speech laws, which are causing such ridiculous fiascos in Canada.

You either have free speech or you don't. There's no partial free speech.

But there are exceptions to free speech in every country. The most obvious example is that no country will let you divulge national security secrets in a public forum.

We have holocausts - did God cause them? Of course not! WE DID.

Yes, but if you believe that God is omnipotent, then he could have stopped the holocausts and yet did not do so. I suppose, judging from what you have already said, that God allowing people to cause holocausts makes the world more interesting or something, but does that explanation really strike you as very plausible if you also accept the premise that God is all-benevolent or all-loving? I don't really see how.

The inconsistency I see is that in cases where a human being could easily stop some great suffering from happening and then he doesn't, people condemn him. Yet they refuse to apply the same basic moral reasoning to God. I guess you can go ahead and say that morality simply doesn't apply to God at all, but then that really takes the wind out of the idea that God is "all-good," doesn't it?

[Matt Gregory]

Geez, Matt, are you serious or just playing with your navel?

Maybe God isn't a fucking babysitter. And maybe we aren't fucking babies. Ever think of that?

and later,

So Matt says that we must answer as he has posed the scenario, because that is how he laid out the question. But the question is childishly laid out.

Anna, usually I find your posts to be coherent and insightful and on the right track. In this instance though I think that you're reacting without careful thought. Matt's post was impeccably and thoroughly laid out. It was far from childish - in fact it was very adult in its reasoned questioning.

Thanks Earnest. Anna is just being a big doodoo head.

[Iolaus]

Philo,

But there are exceptions to free speech in every country. The most obvious example is that no country will let you divulge national security secrets in a public forum.

You are not supposed to know national security secrets at all. Only those in certain positions and with clearance are privy to those.

Yes, but if you believe that God is omnipotent, then he could have stopped the holocausts and yet did not do so. I suppose, judging from what you have already said, that God allowing people to cause holocausts makes the world more interesting or something, but does that explanation really strike you as very plausible if you also accept the premise that God is all-benevolent or all-loving? I don't really see how.

Ok, but have you are saying the same thing as yesterday. Did you read where I explained it a little more carefully? If you have, then I think you have truly not stopped to consider my points. Would you really want to live in a world of people with no inner constraints against evil, who had not expanded their egos to include other people? I myself am interested in moral and spiritual perfection. Do you want to remain ignorant forever, and live in a controlled environment?

And would you think the designer of such a life was really good?

You and Matt and Earnest are speaking as responsibility-less, unchanging beings who are 'done to.' Ho hum. Then what? With what can you be trusted?

Whereas, achieving a level of understanding of responsibility for one's soul, and one's reality, is just one of the fundamental lessons we are here fore.

I guess you can go ahead and say that morality simply doesn't apply to God at all, but then that really takes the wind out of the idea that God is "all-good," doesn't it?

I would never say that morality doesn't apply to God. There are too many christians who are already confused on that point. They excuse the supposed actions of Jehovah in the Old Testament with some pretty lame excuses, and apply no standards to God whatsoever. They also riddle christian salvation theology with hideous immorality that they attribute to God. I think it has been a huge historical problem.

The standard is to offer assistance when asked, and not to interfere.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I'm not sure where you're coming from, actually. "Good" to me means, in general, "something beneficial". The degree of benefit doesn't matter as long as it's in the black. "Power" enters into the equation because for something beneficial to happen, there has to be a change from non-beneficial happenings. Hence, there has to be the power to bring about that change. That's how power and good & evil relate with each other. So, I don't see what category error you're talking about.

What I was suggesting is that you have the order reversed. And perhaps almost everybody has, reading the responses here. The good/evil issue is what enters the equation later after power relations, the potentials already have been established.

In other words: the classification as 'beneficial' is a later construct on top of the already present power potential. For example you might think carrying a gun is beneficial and therefore good but no matter ones opinion: a weapon increases or extents power, it influences the dynamic of a gun carrying person vs people around him. The moment one feels vulnerable (powerless) the gun probably will easier be qualified as a good thing. But even if it's seen as (necessary or not) evil - it won't change the power it represents and made it into an option to carry.

The categories are different because sometimes a position of lack of power is deemed 'evil' because of the lack or weakness involved - it's deemed as 'sick', while from the position of lack, the presence of power will be often deemed evil. This could involve fear or ressentiment, ranging from mere jealousy to hostility - the need to undo this power, belittle it.

Powerful beings become go(o)d or demonic. The power dynamic remains in place undisputed but any good/bad assignment is now completely reversible and clearly a more abstract addition compared to the underlying forces feeding it.

Religion seen as power structure can also be seen as 'good' to the extreme of saving ones soul, or guiding ones life. Or seen as total fraud, evil, greatest mistake of mankind. But nobody will dispute the power and influence it has over people.

So, god is all-powerful and therefore all-good!?! Only if (like Nietzsche tried) one sees power, its rise and increase as the only positive in the rawest sense. Beyond personal good and evil - which are always linked to moral, character, culture, law - restrictions placed on power for our 'own good' perhaps.

[Philosophaster]

Would you really want to live in a world of people with no inner constraints against evil, who had not expanded their egos to include other people?

So God permits evil for the purpose of moral instruction? Why not just tell people that murder and rape are wrong and develop their "inner constraints" that way? That's how I developed a moral compass -- I never saw anyone murdered or raped, and I haven't even seen all that many fights, but I was taught that it was wrong to force my will on other people except in certain circumstances (self-defense, stopping an assault or murder, etc.), and I accepted it. I didn't have to see bad things firsthand to know that they were bad, and I don't think I'm exceptional in that regard.

You and Matt and Earnest are speaking as responsibility-less, unchanging beings who are 'done to.' Ho hum. Then what? With what can you be trusted?

Is the person who gets murdered by a stranger "responsible" for being murdered? I don't see how letting murders go on enhances anyone's sense of responsibility, do you?

[earnest_seeker]

I think that the words used, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. are often used in a magical way, not a realistic way. God is omnipotent because God is within everything. But I do not suppose that God can do various impossible things by waving his magical wand.

So perhaps a sensible definition of omnipotent is "Having the power to do anything that is possible".

But generally I do find the problem of evil as people present it fairly immature, coming from a spiritually childish and mentally shallow position.

And in turn I generally find the removal of culpability from God to humans due to "the gift of free will" to be rationally suspect, not to mention that the idea that God fails to prevent immense suffering when He could is dubious at best (and I'm being very kind to you in choosing that word).

We must LEARN to live in heaven, by learning consequences of our behavior, desiring to be like God, being inspired to emulate God, and allowing God inside of us.

Yes, yes, exactly. But by your conception, God doesn't intervene to stop suffering when He could. Should we desire to be like and emulate that behaviour?

You sound like a Christian

I actually don't identify as a Christian, for several reasons:
1. It implies a belief that the Bible is the wholly truthful word of God, which I definitely don't believe,
2. It requires a belief that Jesus Christ lived as is described in the Bible, and is mankind's saviour, which I don't have an opinion on either way - maybe it's true and maybe it isn't,
3. It implies the particular beliefs in God's characteristics that we are discussing here, namely that God is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, which I hold to be contradictory given the state of the world,
4. It implies a belief that God created the Devil (a fallen angel), which I don't believe - I believe that the Devil is a preexisting counterpart to God, beyond God's direct control.

Do you identify as a Christian?

so, from the Christian perspective, my opinion is that the above is what being born again really means, and it is accomplished by being birthed via the Holy Spirit, and not by some decision to accept the teachings of Christ, or a belief in him. That is something different.

You seem to believe in the traditional Trinity. What is the Holy Spirit to you?

If God stopped us from learning by intervening so that we could never grab trucks and get sand thrown at us, we would forever remain just as those toddlers.

According to you, then, we are capable of coming to behave in a godly way, (through learning). So it is possible. Now our definition of omnipotence (assuming that you accept it) is the power to do all things that are possible. Therefore, an omnipotent God has the power to bring us to this state of behaving in a godly way without us having to go through all of the suffering to get there. We needn't have been toddlers in the first place: if God truly were omnipotent then He could have created us as godly creatures from the start. He would therefore be responsible for all of the suffering that we undergo given that he had instead forced upon us this learning-through-pain paradigm.

What kind of heaven would it be if all the people you are in heaven with would be perfectly ready to grab your truck and hit you on the head with a brick to get it, only God prevents it?

Oh, but I'm not suggesting that scenario. I'm suggesting the scenario where the people in heaven want to give you their only truck just because they know that it would give you pleasure, because that's the way that God created them.

And, I'll tell you something else that might not have really registered with you, because it won't until you reach a certain level of attainment

I pay close attention on this board to elitism and assertions of superiority, because it's quite commonplace - it's one of the defining dynamics of the place. I'm disappointed to see you hinting at it in the above quote - I had thought that you were humbler than that. The implication that I get from that quote is "I have reached a certain level of attainment where I can see certain things that you can't because you are at a lower level". Really, what do you know about me to make that implication except that I take issue with the characteristics that you ascribe to God?

but the joy of heaven has not only to do with God, and with the nice surroundings, but it has a tremendous amount to do with the other beings - people - who are there with you. Until your own soul exists in a heavenly state of perception, and until you have companions who are also that way, there is no heaven.

That makes sense to me.

Heaven isn't a gated community in the sky.

Heaven is coming home.

Suffering is temporary. Most of it is our fault and not God's.

And what of the suffering that is not directly human-related? Weather-related disasters and the like? Are these in any way necessary? What purpose does God intend with them?

No matter how important the suffering seems to us now, it will vanish like smoke and its importance will vanish.

We live in the moment. What happens in the moment is important. I don't think that the fact that one day we will look back on our suffering diminishes its overall significance.

Think again, too, about the notion that the use of force or manipulation is generally an evil thing, done by beings who have their own interests at stake. It is extremely loving, benevolent and accepting of God to allow us to be exactly who we are at every moment.

Not if who we are at that moment is a hateful, violent, sadistic monster, nor if who we are is a being in deep suffering.

If God is omnipotent and if He created us, then God structured our free will, and God is ultimately responsible for who we are. I don't buy this "God gave us free will and therefore we are responsible for suffering, not Him" argument. I'll explain why by quoting part of an essay that I was - coincidentally - in the process of writing when I first noticed this thread. The essay is titled "The philosophical problems with Christianity, and a proposed solution".

Such a glaring problem [the problem of suffering given an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God] must of course be addressed by Christianity if it is to have any hope of maintaining any credibility whatsoever, and the typical answer that it provides is that God created humans (and angels) with free will, and that suffering is the result of an abuse of free will - in other words, that we suffer because we sin. There is a serious problem with this answer, however. Notice the implicit claim that it makes: that free will implies the existence of sin. Is this really true though? In answering "no", let me explain why by examining the nature of free will. Firstly, how free is our will anyway? Can we will ourselves to fly up into the air against gravity? Can we will our bodies to morph into animal shapes? We cannot: clearly then our wills - despite some freedom - are in a sense also constrained. There is another and more important sense in which our wills are constrained: we have preferences and biases. We prefer certain flavours over others; we prefer the company of certain people over other people Clearly, then, our wills are generally biased in some ways, and a bias is a form of constraint. Finally, consider that our wills operate within a context: the outside world. Our choices in the world are constrained by circumstances, so this is another way in which our wills are not totally free.

What does all of this mean? The key realisation is that it is not that human beings are wholly responsible for their sins: equally (or even more so - He supposedly being omnipotent) it is God who bears responsibility for man's sin. As sole creator of the universe - according to Christian teaching - God was free to constrain our wills such that the choice to sin never entered into our minds: He has already constrained it in other ways. Think about it like this: God has constrained our will such that we cannot oppose gravity; what was stopping Him from constraining our will such that we cannot oppose righteousness? If He is omnipotent, then the answer is plainly that nothing was stopping him. The implication of this is that if God is omnipotent, then He is responsible for any suffering that results from sin. Furthermore, as the architect of the universe, it would be God who determined that the consequence of sin is suffering, but He need not have made that the case: He could have chosen instead to ignore or forgive sin and to not impose any consequences. Again, responsibility for suffering remains with an omnipotent God.

[Iolaus]

Philo,

So God permits evil for the purpose of moral instruction? Why not just tell people that murder and rape are wrong and develop their "inner constraints" that way? That's how I developed a moral compass -- I never saw anyone murdered or raped, and I haven't even seen all that many fights, but I was taught that it was wrong to force my will on other people except in certain circumstances (self-defense, stopping an assault or murder, etc.), and I accepted it. I didn't have to see bad things firsthand to know that they were bad, and I don't think I'm exceptional in that regard.

But we do not know if, for example, reincarnation is true, and I think it is, whether you were born with a well developed moral sense that took just a little prodding. I also don't think that we are here to learn just the basic and crude morals, but to attain much finer gradations of understanding.

Is the person who gets murdered by a stranger "responsible" for being murdered? I don't see how letting murders go on enhances anyone's sense of responsibility, do you?

No, I didn't mean that, although it is possible in a karmic sense. Nonetheless, belief in karma, while incredibly useful, does carry a danger of becoming complacent about suffering. This is wrong. If a person is being raped because their particular karmic history invited this thing, they are nonetheless to be viewed as completely innocent in the moment. That is a bit paradoxical, but I believe it is correct. And besides, we have no way of knowing this series of prior causes that lead to the present moment, and we should act in the best and most ethical way. This is the way to dissipate negative karma for all parties, whereas if we ignore the situation, the karmic situation worsens.

Earnest,

So perhaps a sensible definition of omnipotent is "Having the power to do anything that is possible".

Yes, perhaps. I have not worried too much about those definitions.

And in turn I generally find the removal of culpability from God to humans due to "the gift of free will" to be rationally suspect, not to mention that the idea that God fails to prevent immense suffering when He could is dubious at best (and I'm being very kind to you in choosing that word).

I guess I am at a loss here. I can't seem to convey that we have to learn and become by doing things ourselves. Life is not a spectator sport. This is it. It's real.

I do not go on about free will because I find it a very difficult question. There are very good arguments both in favor and against it. I agreed with your below essay that our free will is constrained. Yet, such as it is, it seems to be vital.

If God prevents us from acting on our impulses he controls us and we never grow up or become worthy companions. It would be very strange if every time someone wants to strike someone else, they find that their nerves oddly won't function like they just had a stroke or something.

And then, too, there is the argument that we cannot know the good if it has never had a contrast.

God is culpable, if you want to put it that way. God is responsible. God is responsible for it all because everything, absolutely everything comes from and arises out of God, yes, evil and the devil too. But for the greater good, God allows us to become real souls, not robots or automatons.

Yes, yes, exactly. But by your conception, God doesn't intervene to stop suffering when He could. Should we desire to be like and emulate that behaviour?

For me to fully emulate God I would need to be free of the fear of death. God is completely invulnerable in every way, and allows us to make choices. But I do admire God for completely accepting all creatures at all times, and I do strive to be like that, with pretty good success.

4. It implies a belief that God created the Devil (a fallen angel), which I don't believe - I believe that the Devil is a preexisting counterpart to God, beyond God's direct control.

This would make you a gnostic but I am sure they are in error. First of all, there is nothing preexisting God because the definition of God is the fundament of existence itself, and nothing can precede that nor equal it. Evil is not real, it is a potential, and it depends upon good for its existence.

Do you identify as a Christian?

No, for the first two of your reasons, as well as others, in which I think Christian theology has been derived from minds tempted by evil thoughts, which have slandered God.

The things Jesus taught (and I don't know if he even lived) are in direct contradiction to some things in the Old Testament and to things that are common in christian theology. Primarily, the doctrines of eternal damnation and the idea that God in some way needed a sacrifice as an offering in order to forgive humanity. Not to mention painting God as an egomaniac who's going to be really pissed if you can't figure out the Jesus question, or figure out whether he exists.

Christian theology, unfortunately, tends to prevent people from having the very breakthroughs that the New Testament teaches.

You seem to believe in the traditional Trinity. What is the Holy Spirit to you?

I wrote that because I thought you would understand it. Concepts of trinity are important to several belief systems, as well as concepts of one, and of two...these are all sacred numbers for different reasons.
The Holy Spirit to me is the life-love energy of the universe, the Force, the ether, the akashic field, the uncreated energies of God which pervade everything and uphold everything. It is the void, the womb of creation. The Holy Spirit, as an energy, can ignite a spark within the human person, the brain, and cause them to come to life, spiritually speaking.

Therefore, an omnipotent God has the power to bring us to this state of behaving in a godly way without us having to go through all of the suffering to get there.

You have said so, but perhaps you are wrong. Or perhaps it would be agonizingly slow.

Oh, but I'm not suggesting that scenario. I'm suggesting the scenario where the people in heaven want to give you their only truck just because they know that it would give you pleasure, because that's the way that God created them.

I'm not a believer in magic.

I pay close attention on this board to elitism and assertions of superiority, because it's quite commonplace - it's one of the defining dynamics of the place. I'm disappointed to see you hinting at it in the above quote - I had thought that you were humbler than that. The implication that I get from that quote is "I have reached a certain level of attainment where I can see certain things that you can't because you are at a lower level". Really, what do you know about me to make that implication except that I take issue with the characteristics that you ascribe to God?

Yes, you are right, I did hint at that. I don't really think that very many people have gotten to that understanding, especially since there is first of all the confusion of the map with the territory, and second of all, various lessons are learned and relearned at new and deeper levels. As for me, I had a profound breakthrough about it maybe 6 months ago, which brought me great joy. You are right of course that I don't know much about you; I had gotten certain impressions from some of your questions. I would think a person who does not understand the issue of spiritual responsibility might not understand this either. I did not intend to be so offensive, I rather meant it as a carrot.

And what of the suffering that is not directly human-related? Weather-related disasters and the like? Are these in any way necessary? What purpose does God intend with them?

I don't know, but we can remind ourselves that no one gets out of here alive, we are not supposed to, we all die and again, it would be odd for every person born to die at the age of exactly 85. Also, we cannot see the full picture and while no one wants to die or have a loved on die at any given moment, there are many ways in which things could be all working out to the good. Perhaps many people gather together during a disaster all of whom have a karmic need to die at that time.

Then, too, some people think, and I am not at all averse, that our thoughts and inner state affect everything - how humans feel on the planet and how the weather behaves. It may be that disasters could be a rarity if we were in a heavenly inner state. Does not this "whole world groan together under the bondage of decay and corruption?" If this whole cosmos is indeed an interrelated whole, all things affect one another.

And who, that has ever had a near death experience, found it other than wonderful? Is death bad? What if death is like waking up in the morning? What if there is no death? Must every chess piece agonize when it is removed from the board till the next round?

We live in the moment. What happens in the moment is important. I don't think that the fact that one day we will look back on our suffering diminishes its overall significance.

Not now, no. Suffering and injustice are very poignant. They are the goads that we need. We must take them seriously. Nonetheless, suffering will drop away as if it never existed. As will guilt and anger.

If God is omnipotent and if He created us, then God structured our free will, and God is ultimately responsible for who we are.

Yes, totally.

I don't buy this "God gave us free will and therefore we are responsible for suffering, not Him" argument.

But we are responsible for what we do, even if we are tempted by the devil! God's responsibility runs deeper, on an ultimate level. But it is immature to blame God for our actions because getting out of hell is our responsibility, and finding the way out is, well, the whole point.

Better to get started. Have a little more faith, so that anger and confusion don't hold you back.

Furthermore, as the architect of the universe, it would be God who determined that the consequence of sin is suffering, but He need not have made that the case: He could have chosen instead to ignore or forgive sin and to not impose any consequences. Again, responsibility for suffering remains with an omnipotent God.

I agree with most of your essay, but:

It seems to me that Christianity quite often promotes a grade-school level of spiritual understanding, as opposed to eastern thought, for example. It is to this limited understanding that you are arguing in this essay. I, too, have thought of writing something to help Christians out of their morass.

Here you speak of sin as a kind of badness, which is overemphasized in christianity to the point of making sin seem innate to the human soul whereas it is not. What is innate to the human soul is purity.
But sin, in Hebrew, means to miss the mark, and the mark that is missed is perfection. So sin is a lack of perfection, and the Buddhists simply call it ignorance and I think they are right.
Since sin is a falling short of a full residing in God, or an optimally developed soul, then naturally it entails suffering since the further we are from God the more unhappy we feel. The closer we are to God the more we treat one another as equal to ourselves, and therefore to be far from God is to be lost in ego constriction, misery, fear and violence.

This is not an arbitrary decision of God, it is how reality works.

God does not impose consequences, karma is how reality works. It is an energy flow.

God ignores and forgives all sins, for all time. There was never a time when you weren't forgiven from the foundation of the world.

[divine focus]

God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God,

You're talking about something different from what I'm talking about. There's no question that God is omnipotent because that's how I defined the scenario. I'm talking about the usual Christian type of god.

Isn't there a Satan that entices faithful with separate "God" power?

[earnest_seeker]

earnest: And in turn I generally find the removal of culpability from God to humans due to "the gift of free will" to be rationally suspect, not to mention that the idea that God fails to prevent immense suffering when He could is dubious at best (and I'm being very kind to you in choosing that word).

Iolaus: I guess I am at a loss here. I can't seem to convey that we have to learn and become by doing things ourselves. Life is not a spectator sport. This is it. It's real.

I actually agree with what you write, but I don't think that it is responsive to the point that I was making.

Anyway, let me try to summarise our essential disagreement. We both seem to believe that God is omnibenevolent - that He wants the best for His creation, in particular the sentient part of it. To both of us this means that sentience becomes godlike. To you, the means by which sentience approaches divinity is by learning through suffering. I'm saying to you that if - as you do - you believe that God is omnipotent, then this scheme of learning-through-suffering is one that He has created. I ask, why not instead did God not just create us all so that we're already at the end-point of the process? Your reply is that it would be "magical" for him to do that. OK, so that's where we're at. Now I'd like you to explain two things:
1. Why is this scheme of learning-through-suffering such a necessary one, such that even an omnibenevolent God tolerates the suffering involved?
2. What exactly is it that is so magical about creating us at the end-point of the journey that you won't countenance it?

You seem to be - as Philo has pointed out - arguing that suffering is necessary in life, and that it's immature to believe otherwise. My counter-argument is that an omnipotent God has the power to banish all suffering, and that given His love for His creation, that He ought to do that. The fact that He in fact has not done so is telling. What does it tell me? It tells me that God is not actually omnipotent. I don't suppose that you'll like that conclusion much, but it's what I was alluding to when I suggested that you remodel your conception of God.

If God prevents us from acting on our impulses he controls us and we never grow up or become worthy companions. It would be very strange if every time someone wants to strike someone else, they find that their nerves oddly won't function like they just had a stroke or something.

Oh, well I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting instead that God design us in such a way that those impulses never arise in the first place.

And then, too, there is the argument that we cannot know the good if it has never had a contrast.

Yes, Sapius will probably like that one. As for me, I have two responses. Firstly, I'm not too sure that a phenomenon requires a contrast to be accurately perceived. Love simply feels good, regardless of whether I contrast it with suffering. Isn't that enough? Secondly, there could nevertheless be a contrast anyway: one would still be able to imagine evil/bad/sin, one would simply never have the desire or impulse to actually commit it.

God is responsible for it all because everything, absolutely everything comes from and arises out of God, yes, evil and the devil too.

What possible motive could an omnibenevolent God have for creating evil??

But for the greater good, God allows us to become real souls, not robots or automatons.

A real soul need not have the opportunity to sin.

earnest: But by your conception, God doesn't intervene to stop suffering when He could. Should we desire to be like and emulate that behaviour?

Iolaus: For me to fully emulate God I would need to be free of the fear of death. God is completely invulnerable in every way, and allows us to make choices. But I do admire God for completely accepting all creatures at all times, and I do strive to be like that, with pretty good success.

Your answer was non-responsive. I asked specifically about whether we should emulate the behaviour of not intervening to prevent suffering.

earnest: 4. It implies a belief that God created the Devil (a fallen angel), which I don't believe - I believe that the Devil is a preexisting counterpart to God, beyond God's direct control.

Iolaus: This would make you a gnostic but I am sure they are in error. First of all, there is nothing preexisting God

Oh, I didn't intend to imply that the Devil preexists God, merely that he preexists creation in the same way in which God does - i.e. that they are two "equal" counterparts from an existential perspective.

because the definition of God is the fundament of existence itself, and nothing can precede that nor equal it. Evil is not real, it is a potential, and it depends upon good for its existence.

Do you believe in a literal devil?

Primarily, the doctrines of eternal damnation

Do you believe in a literal hell? I get the impression from your earlier comments on different places in the universe being more or less heavenly or hell-like that you don't, but I'd like to read your direct answer.

and the idea that God in some way needed a sacrifice as an offering in order to forgive humanity.

Exactly. That is going to form part of my essay too. Why would an omnipotent God need to make a sacrifice? To what or to whom is He sacrificing? It's all His anyway - He can't give anything away. And what kind of a sacrifice was it exactly? Jesus didn't really lose his life, did he? He was resurrected three days later.

The Holy Spirit, as an energy, can ignite a spark within the human person, the brain, and cause them to come to life, spiritually speaking.

And it has done this to you?

You are right of course that I don't know much about you

Actually you probably know more than you think. ;-)

earnest: And what of the suffering that is not directly human-related? Weather-related disasters and the like? Are these in any way necessary? What purpose does God intend with them?

I don't know, but we can remind ourselves that no one gets out of here alive, we are not supposed to, we all die and again, it would be odd for every person born to die at the age of exactly 85. Also, we cannot see the full picture and while no one wants to die or have a loved on die at any given moment, there are many ways in which things could be all working out to the good. Perhaps many people gather together during a disaster all of whom have a karmic need to die at that time.

Again, this is an inadequate response. In general, humans value life and repudiate a morality that condones murder. Presumably God feels the same way. And yet here God is responsible through inaction (or potentially even through direct action) for mass death. And all that you can say is "I don't know why He does that". All that I'm saying is that there is a different way of viewing God where you can have an adequate response.

Then, too, some people think, and I am not at all averse, that our thoughts and inner state affect everything - how humans feel on the planet and how the weather behaves. It may be that disasters could be a rarity if we were in a heavenly inner state. Does not this "whole world groan together under the bondage of decay and corruption?" If this whole cosmos is indeed an interrelated whole, all things affect one another.

Funny, just earlier you wrote that you didn't believe in magic...

And who, that has ever had a near death experience, found it other than wonderful? Is death bad? What if death is like waking up in the morning? What if there is no death? Must every chess piece agonize when it is removed from the board till the next round?

If death is as you say then why do we have laws against murder, and why does almost every human morality condemn murder?

But it is immature to blame God for our actions

I don't blame God for my actions, because I don't believe that He's omnipotent.

Better to get started. Have a little more faith, so that anger and confusion don't hold you back.

Apparently you know how far along the journey I am. Very good, I'm glad that you have such confidence in your spiritual diagnostic skills.

Since sin is a falling short of a full residing in God, or an optimally developed soul, then naturally it entails suffering since the further we are from God the more unhappy we feel. The closer we are to God the more we treat one another as equal to ourselves, and therefore to be far from God is to be lost in ego constriction, misery, fear and violence.

This is not an arbitrary decision of God, it is how reality works.

That's a key sentence to me. It indicates that we actually agree a fair bit. It indicates to me that you believe that there are some aspects of reality that God is bound by, rather than being the all-powerful creator of reality, and this belief of yours aligns quite well with my beliefs.

God does not impose consequences, karma is how reality works. It is an energy flow.

Probably you are right.

God ignores and forgives all sins, for all time. There was never a time when you weren't forgiven from the foundation of the world.

Perhaps so.

Just a note: I have a fair bit of work to do in the next few days, so I might be tardy in my responses. OTOH, I am enjoying the discussion, so I might play hooky from work to keep it going. That's if you feel like continuing it of course.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm not sure where you're coming from, actually. "Good" to me means, in general, "something beneficial". The degree of benefit doesn't matter as long as it's in the black. "Power" enters into the equation because for something beneficial to happen, there has to be a change from non-beneficial happenings. Hence, there has to be the power to bring about that change. That's how power and good & evil relate with each other. So, I don't see what category error you're talking about.

What I was suggesting is that you have the order reversed. And perhaps almost everybody has, reading the responses here. The good/evil issue is what enters the equation later after power relations, the potentials already have been established.

In other words: the classification as 'beneficial' is a later construct on top of the already present power potential. For example you might think carrying a gun is beneficial and therefore good but no matter ones opinion: a weapon increases or extents power, it influences the dynamic of a gun carrying person vs people around him. The moment one feels vulnerable (powerless) the gun probably will easier be qualified as a good thing. But even if it's seen as (necessary or not) evil - it won't change the power it represents and made it into an option to carry.

The categories are different because sometimes a position of lack of power is deemed 'evil' because of the lack or weakness involved - it's deemed as 'sick', while from the position of lack, the presence of power will be often deemed evil. This could involve fear or ressentiment, ranging from mere jealousy to hostility - the need to undo this power, belittle it.

Powerful beings become go(o)d or demonic. The power dynamic remains in place undisputed but any good/bad assignment is now completely reversible and clearly a more abstract addition compared to the underlying forces feeding it.

Religion seen as power structure can also be seen as 'good' to the extreme of saving ones soul, or guiding ones life. Or seen as total fraud, evil, greatest mistake of mankind. But nobody will dispute the power and influence it has over people.

So, god is all-powerful and therefore all-good!?! Only if (like Nietzsche tried) one sees power, its rise and increase as the only positive in the rawest sense. Beyond personal good and evil - which are always linked to moral, character, culture, law - restrictions placed on power for our 'own good' perhaps.

Well, I don't think God's goodness needs to be caused by his all-powerfulness. His power only needs to benefit the people who made the religion. If "all-good" means "everything he does and doesn't do is good" then he doesn't even need to be all-powerful, just that the power he has needs to be fully utilized for good. If "all-good" means "all the good in the universe comes from God" then I suppose there is a problem there, but I doubt anyone who believes in God would say that because they have to see themselves as a source of good as well.

[Matt Gregory]

God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God,

You're talking about something different from what I'm talking about. There's no question that God is omnipotent because that's how I defined the scenario. I'm talking about the usual Christian type of god.

Isn't there a Satan that entices faithful with separate "God" power?

Yeah, that's true. Sorry for writing your post off so quickly. Here it is again:

If God is all-powerful, then does he do everything himself and thus kill the Jews? And if so, does that mean that killing those Jews was good? If he doesn't do everything, did he just let it happen?

This is only a question if you hold God to be the One Decider of everything in a pre-determined way. God's Power is only now, not past or future, and since people exist and choose only now as well, God's Power can only work through people (whether they are aware of it or not). God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God, although he/she cannot fully give up their God Power. They can never leave the now, but they may be preoccupied with past and future and social ramifications such that they become unaware of Power. Whatever atrocities that may be committed were not committed with an awareness of God Power, even if God was used to justify them within misunderstanding. In a sense, God Power is used in every event and circumstance, by victimizer and victim, if they exist. Since there is always the now, and there always was and always will be, God Power is absolute such that benevolence and growth is the ultimate direction of every circumstance.

I don't really understand what you mean by "God's Power" and it being only in the now. For one, the ordinary Christian God created the heavens and the earth, so that puts his power firmly in the past and outside of people. So, I'm getting the impression that you're talking about a different type of god than I am. It wouldn't really matter but when you say "God is not omnipotent if an individual chooses to operate under a power other than God", it makes me think that you're thinking of God as a purely psychological phenomenon and I don't think my argument can be applied to that.

[Matt Gregory]

If God stopped us from learning by intervening so that we could never grab trucks and get sand thrown at us, we would forever remain just as those toddlers.

According to you, then, we are capable of coming to behave in a godly way, (through learning). So it is possible. Now our definition of omnipotence (assuming that you accept it) is the power to do all things that are possible. Therefore, an omnipotent God has the power to bring us to this state of behaving in a godly way without us having to go through all of the suffering to get there. We needn't have been toddlers in the first place: if God truly were omnipotent then He could have created us as godly creatures from the start. He would therefore be responsible for all of the suffering that we undergo given that he had instead forced upon us this learning-through-pain paradigm.

Yep. If God is omnipotent then he made all the laws of nature and could have made them so that painful growth is unnecessary. Why would he have done this unless he's not totally powerful or not totally good?

[DHodges]

Why would he have done this unless he's not totally powerful or not totally good?

The notion of totally good (omnibenevolent) doesn't actually make any sense. "Good" is not a fact about a state of affairs, but an opinion or value judgement made from a particular point of view.

[Matt Gregory]

Well, none of it makes sense.

[Philosophaster]

Why would he have done this unless he's not totally powerful or not totally good?

The notion of totally good (omnibenevolent) doesn't actually make any sense. "Good" is not a fact about a state of affairs, but an opinion or value judgement made from a particular point of view.

You can still judge whether someone has met a particular standard of "good" by examining their actions (or lack thereof).

The "problem of evil" just notes that the world we actually observe doesn't seem to comport with the idea that there exists a God who lives up to the standard of "good" that most theists accept, since that standard certainly includes things like alleviating suffering whenever it presents no great cost to you to do so -- and with God the issue of "cost" is irrelevant, since in the traditional theistic view he is all-powerful and never lacks anything.

Some say that the normal standards of good don't apply to God. Others say that God doesn't actually love everyone. Still others say that the suffering is allowed for the sake of some "greater good" like human freedom. And a few say that the world we actually live in is the best of all possible worlds; but not very many people defend that view nowadays.

Those are the most common responses.

[Iolaus]

Hello Earnest,

Yes, I am enjoying this exchange but also have a heavy work schedule the next few days. I usually will get a chance to go online and read to keep up, but probably won't be comfortable actually logging on and answering from work, so that is fine, a little slower.

We both seem to believe that God is omnibenevolent - that He wants the best for His creation, in particular the sentient part of it.To both of us this means that sentience becomes godlike. To you, the means by which sentience approaches divinity is by learning through suffering.

But I don't think that is the only thing going on, or the only mode of learning. Also, I am a monist. Perhaps a panentheist. I don't think of God as a separate entity. I think of God as both immanent and transcendent. It is my working hypothesis that there is a transcendent mind, but God's immanence and his infinite nature preclude him being a separate being as commonly thought of. How this works is still a mystery to me. That is OK. I consider it a point of wisdom to allow the parts that you don't understand to be, while continuing to request and seek greater understanding. No need to jump to conclusions based on discomfort with the state of ignorance.

1. Why is this scheme of learning-through-suffering such a necessary one, such that even an omnibenevolent God tolerates the suffering involved?
2. What exactly is it that is so magical about creating us at the end-point of the journey that you won't countenance it?

Well, some people think there are angelic beings who have not had our path. But there are also hints that perhaps we have a greater destiny. Also, angels - if they exist - may learn by their involvement with us.

You think that God could create us at the endpoint of the journey, but that is a wishful supposition not based on knowledge. Do you know what is the substance of your soul?

The idea of a finished product with no process is magical to me, and quite uninteresting. You want all the gifts and no effort. A reward cheaply won. I do not actually think of the human soul as a finished product. Souls are in a state of becoming and who knows the limit. You are the forger of your own soul! There! Does that make any sense? You are the forger of your own soul. You must make your own essence, your own character. It is up to you.

You are not automatically real. You must become real.

Again and again, don't ask why why why does God not do this or that TO you. We are all in this process together. It isn't about some art project.

There are those who think that we are the individual face of God. That God takes in our experience, is our experience, as we are also part of God.

You seem to be - as Philo has pointed out - arguing that suffering is necessary in life, and that it's immature to believe otherwise. My counter-argument is that an omnipotent God has the power to banish all suffering, and that given His love for His creation, that He ought to do that. The fact that He in fact has not done so is telling. What does it tell me? It tells me that God is not actually omnipotent. I don't suppose that you'll like that conclusion much, but it's what I was alluding to when I suggested that you remodel your conception of God.

I am not attached to God's omnipotence. I just do not agree at all with your reasoning. Evil is a potential.
You are making assumptions that love equals not letting anyone suffer. But God allows everything, has full confidence in everyone, accepts all beings at all times for exactly who and what they are. You cannot see the difference between a world where there was no potential to do or be anything other than a prescribed behavior? That doesn't make it real. Only the free choice with knowledge and understanding and experience makes it real.

Oh, well I'm not suggesting that - I'm suggesting instead that God design us in such a way that those impulses never arise in the first place.

See above.

Secondly, there could nevertheless be a contrast anyway: one would still be able to imagine evil/bad/sin, one would simply never have the desire or impulse to actually commit it.

No, I do not agree that we could imagine what doesn't ever exist or happen, nor would it have much impact. Additionally, there may perhaps be other beings in other places who have such a path, or perhaps learn by watching those such as ourselves. You do not know how you landed here or why, in this bizarre situation that we find ourselves in. But before your birth, your soul probably knew what it was taking on.

What possible motive could an omnibenevolent God have for creating evil??

Evil isn't a thing, it is a potential, a departure, it arises from a state of consciousness that is incomplete. Perhaps a side effect of individuality. A misunderstanding of self. God is everything, all possibility. Shall the eternal and infinite and never-born shrink from experience?

Your answer was non-responsive. I asked specifically about whether we should emulate the behaviour of not intervening to prevent suffering.

It would be inappropriate for us to do so in the situation that we are in.

God will intervene in evil through you. When you intervene, give God the credit, and when you refrain from evil, give God the credit, and when you lose the ability to enjoy yourself at someone else's expense, give God the credit.

That's how it works. That's how God stops evil. He is waiting for you.

Oh, I didn't intend to imply that the Devil preexists God, merely that he preexists creation in the same way in which God does - i.e. that they are two "equal" counterparts from an existential perspective.

There can be only one Source to all things, otherwise there is no God. And even if there is no God, there can still be only one Source to all things. Not two. But the Source and God are two words for the same thing.

Do you believe in a literal devil?

I think the Christian conception of demonic beings is probably pretty accurate. I hold them partially accountable for the sorry state of Christian theology.

Do you believe in a literal hell? I get the impression from your earlier comments on different places in the universe being more or less heavenly or hell-like that you don't, but I'd like to read your direct answer.

Only in the karmic sense, that our souls are on a long journey, not just one lifetime of incarnation, and that it may be appropriate for certain souls to incarnate for a time, or spend time between lives, in a rather unpleasant place. Some souls are pretty evil, have done quite evil and cruel acts, and the universe will respond accordingly. But not a vindictive punishment to satisfy any kind of anger, certainly not from God. In fact, I think that a soul who is enmeshed in such negativity, after death, will be vulnerable to other negative entities, just as happens here on earth. It isn't that they have to be punished per se, but that they will simply gravitate to the level they function at.

Exactly. That is going to form part of my essay too. Why would an omnipotent God need to make a sacrifice? To what or to whom is He sacrificing? It's all His anyway - He can't give anything away. And what kind of a sacrifice was it exactly? Jesus didn't really lose his life, did he? He was resurrected three days later.

It's too big a topic to address here, and I don't think you intended that anyway! But as for my ideas on the subject, I think the idea of the sacrifice was a 180 from what Jesus taught. But not all Christians swallow that stuff. although most do.

And it has done this to you?

It has.

Again, this is an inadequate response. In general, humans value life and repudiate a morality that condones murder. Presumably God feels the same way. And yet here God is responsible through inaction (or potentially even through direct action) for mass death. And all that you can say is "I don't know why He does that". All that I'm saying is that there is a different way of viewing God where you can have an adequate response.

We cannot operate on the principle that we have to be provided all understanding right away. We have to be patient. You say my answer was inadequate but I don't think so. You are asking to have signed up for a different planet or different process than you are getting. You want there to be no evil, to be created in such a way that your potential stays within prescribed bounds, and then, while having a mortal body of flesh, you want it guaranteed that no one dies, and that natural processes do not occur, or if they do that God gets on his bullhorn and effects an evacuation.

Your view of God is a bit too diminished for me. And I don't require God to be omnipotent, and I do not know if he is (or wants to be) omniscient! Do you believe that chaos reigns, that there is no real purpose here?

Funny, just earlier you wrote that you didn't believe in magic...

Nothing to do with magic. It is science. All is connected. There is a field. A field of consciousness. A subtle realm of causation out of which our denser materiality manifests and is ever manifesting.

And, it is your job to participate in a way that leads to the greater good. (Or evil, if you prefer it.) We actually have no choice in the matter. Every human being on the planet is affecting all others, is affecting the 'vibe' of this place, whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not. And that is because this is not a spectator reality! And we are not separate beings. Partially separate, but not fully separate.

Look up the Maharishi effect. Transcendental Meditation. Divine Cosmos (website) and The Science of Peace. Or, Ervin Lazslo, Science and the Akashic Field. Or Lynn McTaggart, The Field.

If death is as you say then why do we have laws against murder, and why does almost every human morality condemn murder?

Because reality is funny?
I believe we fear death and value our lives so that we will participate as if things mattered, the better to learn. And murder is the ultimate interference against someone else. Remember, the use of force, violence, deception, manipulation or intimidation is what evil is.

That's why God doesn't do it.

I don't blame God for my actions, because I don't believe that He's omnipotent.

My point was a little different. You blame God because people are able to do rotten things. But we become good through choosing the good, and while it is probably true that our will is constrained, it nonetheless operates within its sphere.

Apparently you know how far along the journey I am. Very good, I'm glad that you have such confidence in your spiritual diagnostic skills.

Not at all, but we all are on a long journey. No matter where you are, the right attitude is a wind in your sail.

It indicates to me that you believe that there are some aspects of reality that God is bound by, rather than being the all-powerful creator of reality, and this belief of yours aligns quite well with my beliefs.

But then you say other things, such as that God could have made us just as good without having to experience our full potential to choose, and without it being voluntary.