God's View On Violence

How so? It is the ones who are not predators that get killed.

 

Because they're inflicting violence on the non predator animals

 

Yes, my point......so there is no love for non violence in nature...now is there?
What kind of god sets things up like that?

 

There clearly is.

 

Could you specify where other than in some humans?

 

What about maternal instincts?

If it can be said that there is love for violence in nature (like from animals themselves, or from a biological origin and not just from humans and our human way of thinking and acting upon those thoughts), the opposite is obviously there as well. Personally I don't think a creator of this world would hate predator animals for being predators at all

 

Maybe we're here as a spectator sport. Plenty to see if violence is enjoyed/allowed.

If this is all a test--we're failing a deity. If this is not a test--we're failing ourselves.

 

No, you are all missing my point..it is for the bigger picture.......the big design, so to speak. There is love among animals...elephants mourn the death of their lost ones longer than us.....some dogs will die from a broken heart if they lose their owners......etc.....that is not what I meant. I think I have a mother instinct for all of the animals.....and it pains me that some are just food and die violent deaths....big picture....The one that is"God's" so to speak.

 

Violence in nature has nothing to do in this thread. This is about human violence inflicted on man and beast. Done with free will and bad intentions. Murder, blood, machine guns, nuclear bombs.

 

As I wrote before, Nephilim. Seems to me the Nephilim babies just grow up to be Nephilim adults. Basically demon babies

 

How so?

Why?

 

An assumption needs to be made, that is -that there is a creator/god that is responsible for existence and all that is in it, in order to answer the original question.

That assumption made ( ignoring known human interpretations), one must ask WHY such misery, death, upheavals, displacements, diseases, inequalities,ect,ect,have continued

throughout known human history and continues today. If we were created willy-nilly by a creator/god with no distinct purpose other than for it to see what happens as our history

unfolds--then I would aver that he/she it is an all observing sadist of the first order. Given what I described previously as continuing, it appears there will be no interference in human

events. He/she/it=fails,is failing.

Given a second assumption, that is-we are on our own, subject to the ongoing evolution of sentient beings, my observation is that we evolved much more quickly in adapting

to the physical world over time, while remaining rather primitive in our psychological determinants. Given then, that it's up to humans to create a caring, sharing, peaceful,

equatable world for ALL beings without the constant slaughter, etc---we are failing ourselves. Miserably.

 

I don't have much faith in the majority of people...no.

 

So you believe that evil angels came to Earth and impregnated every woman who had a baby on the planet except for Noah's wife?

Not once did a regular man and woman have sex and give birth to a child that wasn't a demon?

 

Sorry I asked. Not that your answer sucks, but I knew you had this opinion (and we've been discussing our opinions on this exact thing before ). I like and see the use of the question. But I don't see the inevitable conclusion you make. About either assumption.
If there's no purpose then God is not failing (except for people who disagree with this lack of purpose?), if there is no God and we are on our own, the only purpose being the one we give to life/existence, then we are not failing ourselves either. In fact if we compare lifes and societies before us how are we failing ourselves? Because there's still violence? Because there's a lot of greed? Because money rules a large part of the world? So what? It's all in a person's head what we are ment to do and if we are failing ourselves as a species. Also, if we look objectively we do have a use for violence, if only as a means to defend. We do have a use for money as well, in fact greed is also just a word, a term for a concept that borders on the less negatively perceived urge to improve our own (and others) situation.

 

Agree to disagree then. If anyone thinks our human potential to achieve a world as I described --peaceful, equatable,etc, etc,----for all of humanity-----we fail.

Obviously there is no agreed upon rule or rules that would/will bring about such a world and that is what I mean. It is not and has not been agreed upon that the world

that I wish for is possible. It's certainly not desired by those who ACTUALLY could institute ameliorative changes .Therefore I suppose--we fail only in MY eyes.

I see potential--but it's for dreamers such as me.


Yeah--also suppose that you and I have been discussing this even before the 1st changeover. Still dreamin' here. Have a good day Asmo.

 

Maternal instincts would count I think.

I don't think there's any love of violence in nature. It's just part of being a predator, or maybe a horny antelope.

Either way the idea that we can judge animals for following their instincts is just silly. I would assume that any conscious creative power behind all this would not be subject to love and hate as we are.

 

Surely greed means we want to improve our own situation, but don't really care much about the situation of others? If I grab more than I need, it may mean someone else gets nothing or very little.

 

I'm inclined to assume the same. But this seems exactly why others conclude such a god is evil, psychotic or just an immoral bastard. Personally I think we still don't know shit about God after agreeing with this assumption. (s)He/It could even still be subject to things like love and hate all the same, just in another way as biological creatures like us. Who knows? Without love and the awareness of good and beauty we (or I ) would probably be far less exstatic about life (including violence). To me it seems the creator of life (assuming there is one ) is more connected to love and (or even more to) good than hate and evil/bad. I have thought about why and I do not think this is merely wishful thinking on my part. What we consider good is generally making our lifes better and, as the dope would kinda say, more abundant.

It depends how far your 'us'/'we' feeling extends. People that are included in it are often connected to your own situation, or considered like that. That's why I said the 'and others' part. People improve other people's situation all the time when they are considered part of them in some way (family/friends/same affiliation etc.), wether they are greedy or not. Acquiring stuff or money to improve the situation of your own and others you care about is not greedy by definition of course. Although to me it seems greed is only one step further. So sometimes only subtilely different in reality.

 

Greed = taking more than you need. Probably it has consequences for those who are deprived of their fair share as well as the greedy person. I tend to think it does. I'm thinking here about these ultra rich business types who have billions. I wouldn't want to have to deal with their karma. And in many cases, it's not that the money even makes them happy people.