Can God cure as well as kill? Should God kill or cure?

Defining the god does not validate the god. Conception of such a thing is a personal matter, and there are as many concepts of the god as there are believers . . . unless of course you borrow a concept from someone else, which is always an option.
_________________________________________________________________________

It's times like this that I wish thedope were here . . .

 

Not sure, I do remember a scripture that describes the color of God. The Bible also says that you cannot even look at God or you will die cause of his massive energy

 

We don't have to agree at some point in order to have an intelligent and interesting conversation. So as long as we don't go at war against eachother we don't have to agree at all imo.

I really appreciated him as well

 

Well, not in 7 days. But yeah, God is part of the big bang. When I say God is the creating force behind life in our universe I also don't mean that in a forging way, like 'He' modeled the human and the cow and the birds, etc

You know that idea that we are the universe trying to understand itself? Maybe it's more like that. I'm not drawing conclusions but its fascinating to ponder on these ideas.

 

I think of God in a similar way. Like, God didn't design evolution, but evolution and life are wild and unbridled, and to be that wild is to be Godly. I mean, what could be more beautiful or graceful?

We literally ARE the universe trying to understand itself, is the thing. There's no logical way around that. But I don't see it as having an end goal of ultimately understanding the universe. I don't think God specifically designed us so that we could go forth and try to figure this place out like minions. It's all just a wild accident. And yet it is alive and has meaning.

 

This thread isn't about the existence of God. It's about assertions about the Christian God, based on literal reading of scriptures: that God is a malevolent force, and slander of those who hold traditional Christian beliefs. I think we have ample basis for challenging those claims. It is certainly possible to point out that not all Christians believe that Scripture must be taken literally,and that many Christians believe in hell and Satan as metaphors. When Christians are told what "their religion" teaches about God, it is certainly possible to reply "not so" definitively. To focus on the concept of God instead of the beliefs and practices of those purporting to worship Him, misses the boat.

 

I don't know about that, but I think it's remarkable that we've evolved the ability to ask these questions and to be aware of ourselves and the universe. If there's an evolutionary advantage to consciousness from the standpoint of our survival, science hasn't discovered one yet. Chalmers thought of this as the "hard problem". What does consciousness add to the ability of high functioning zombies to survive? And if Pikaia hadn't survived the Burgess decimation, we wouldn't be here at all. You say "it's all just a wild accident". There have been lots of those. Are we sure they're accidents? We're alive and have given it meaning. If that's a fluke, that would be a miracle!

 

How can you not know about that? Everything we are is of the universe. I don't see how, in a literal sense, there is truly any distinguishing us from the universe. We're here. We're not separate. And we're compulsively trying to understand ourselves. The universe does have eyes and ears and brains, literally.

It's intentional in a sense. We intend to survive and intend to serve a purpose, and this, in part, directs our evolution. It's possible that aliens devised us, but I don't think that life itself was devised, or the way it branches out. I tend to think there is a sense of being and therefore life within everything that exists. Even if it's just a small awareness, an atom interacts with another atom, and that gives it a sort of knowledge of itself.

So it's not a fluke, per se. We're just a byproduct of the life that has always existed by virtue of things being aware of one another and therefore having a sense of identity. I don't believe God plans things out. I think God is just a wild, passionate, creative force that just overflows from its cup, brimming and foaming into seagulls and lions and redwoods and mountains and volcanoes and oceans.

That said, I also think that life has advanced to the point where there are entities who can manipulate our reality. But I think the drive of God is ultimately what propels life forward.

 

I was just responding to Meagain's post, and I think the question 'what is God?' arose because neonspectraltoast posed it. Personally I don't usually engage in discussions as to whether or not God exists, as I feel it's pointless, and in the context of HF, unlikely to change anyone's mind.

I think the question 'what is God?' is actually a lifetime's quest.

I accept that there are different ways to interpret the Bible, and I am quite sympathetic towards Christianity in general (although I have doubts about some Christian ideas).

I don't see how one can entirely separate the concept of God from the beliefs of Christians though.

 

I agree that the idea that we are the universe opening a window on itself is interesting, and there could be something in that.

 

It's a double edged thing - one hand in the past different interpretations have led to much schismatic violence, such as around the time of the Reformation.

On the other side, the Bible is a very influential text, and maybe the way it was understood in the past isn't going to help humankind much in the future. Since I can't see that they're going to let go of the Bible any time soon, I suppose it could be helpful if a less narrow and more symbolic kind of interpretation could gain ascendency.

 

The reformation was a godsent

 

That's another thread I think.

But whatever you think about it, it did lead to some rather nasty violence in some places. From both sides I hasten to add.

 

Sure, but it was an important trigger for the Enlightenment later. A lot of the ideas and motivation were very valid. Like getting rid of all the human idols. Not that I dig or applaud the iconoclast on itself, but the ideas and motivation were sound and the consequences that followed out of it shaped our societies for the better (for those who value freedom of thought at least)

 

I remain divided on the issue. I see the good things that came out of it, but also some bad.

The reformation in Britain was different from what happened on the continent. Here, one effect was to help the Tudor dynasty cement their power, acquire a very great deal of wealth which they stole from the church, and to appropriate to themselves some of the power of the church. In turn that was a big factor in the English civil war and so on.

But it's very complex episode of history - too much to discuss here I think.

One point though I disagree with is that getting rid of 'human idols' was a good idea. I assume you mean the saints? One of the things I like about Catholicism is the saints - it gives it a kind of human element, and also gives people something upon which they can focus. Protestantism has always seems to bit stark to me in some ways, again, reaching a kind of peak in the English Puritans.

 

True, for England it was slightly different. I was thinking primarily about north west continental Europe naturally. But in the end the whole western world benefited from it

 

Certainly I agree there were benefits - but as I said, I also think some negatives, some of which are still with us.

I think one example is that it paved the way for some political divisions to become even more polarized by becoming religious divisions too. In Northern Ireland that's still very visible.

The 30 years war in Europe was the worst example of where that can lead.

 

And it has! But that's been going on for quite awhile, and is part of the dialectic--the battle of memes. In Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman shows that these conflicts go back to the beginning of the church, when "the bible" was just the Old Testament. Paul and the Jerusalem Church battled over what to do about Gentiles. History settled that in Paul's favor. Then came the bout with Gnosticism. The superior organizational clout of the Roman church won that battle. And there were the Reformation in which the priesthood of all believers challenged clerical primacy, the Enlightenment challenge of rationalism, etc, leading to our secularized era, with a veritable cafeteria of religious and irreligious offerings to choose from. I tend to view all this in evolutionary terms, with memes serving as the units of selection. I don't think the outcome is necessarily "progress" , but if the past is a guide, it will probably be more muscular and better equipped for survival--at least for the victorious memes.

 

If you tell people that their god doesn't exist, they go into a tizzy because they consider their belief to be a part of their identity. It's like telling a child that the Santa they believe to be a person is really just an idea. It certainly is a polarizing subject. I think that anyone would be hard-pressed to come up with a better way to separate people than through the invention of gods and religions. How can you not have some contempt for those who think you’re full of shit for believing in your particular god or savior?

For instance, someone says, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, and should be the focus of our worship. Hail Mary!"

Someone else says, "No, Jesus is the son of God, and should be the focus of adoration."

Still another says, "You're both wrong. Buddha is where it's at." And then along comes others who say that their holy text proves that God appreciates them more than he appreciates the others.

And even among those who believe in the same holy text and the same creator and savior, one says, “I don’t think Paul--or Jesus--meant what you say he meant.”

And the other guy says, “Yeah, well I was thinking the same thing about your interpretation.”

So the first guy says, “Well, there’s nothing stopping you from going over there and building your own monument to what you think he meant”

And the second guy says, “I think I will.”

And the first guy says, “I hope you do.”

And the second guy says, “I’ll pray that one day you come to see the light.”

And the first guy says, “Yeah, and I’ll do the same for you.”