God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Agreed. :)

:) Well, now I'm just tempted to talk about the various species on Earth that although they NORMALLY reproduce sexually (ie: with a male and female) can SOMETIMES reproduce WITHOUT a male .. they have the potential for virgin births. Maybe God allows for this sort of thing in special circumstances. :)

OK OK OK ... You're probably right that I've gone too far in the direction of giving people too many outs, I'll try to keep my points more to the point and not go too far. On the other hand, you should acknowledge that there are MANY religious (and otherwise spiritual) people who do not subscribe to the full package.

"I only chose this because its such a commonly held belief." Fair enough .. as long as you're clear about who you're attacking. (And I still don't accept your premise that it is immoral to create a universe with suffering.)

(For the record, the statistics I find most frightening are the ones about teaching creationism in place of evolution in SCIENCE classes.) Many bealieve that we are ALL children of God. To believe that Jesus was also a child of God does not necessarily place him in a special class. And, though I don't think that this is really the point about Jesus' virgin birth, virgin births are certainly possible these days with technology ... and really have always been possible with an "almost" loss of virginity. I wouldn't be too surprised if there has been a virgin birth somewhere in human history.

"And you don’t create a life form from nothingness in order to “teach it something” while requiring it to suffer horribly in the mean time. That’s not moral behavior."

You're still missing the point. Let's suppose that you wanted to create life and that you wanted that life to REALLY EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS (and not just have a mental state that simulates happiness -- we can debate in a separate thread if there is really a distinction to be made here .. I just need you to accept that there COULD be a distinction). MAYBE (just maybe) it is necessary that this new life ALSO experiences suffering as part of the deal. If so (and if happiness is the goal), then it would be immoral NOT to create a world with suffering.

I would ALSO argue that a primary impetus to growth (as we humans define it) is suffering in one form or another, but this is a separate argument that suffering may be necessary for us to have as rich an experience as we have.

Finally, I still maintain that a world without ANY suffering (how much is the right amount is another argument .. and may involve some slippery slopes) would be FAR inferior to the one we inhabit. (And, yes, I realize that this is easy to say from the vantage point of one who is NOT experiencing any significant suffering at the moment.)

--

One last point .. "God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient." Not everyone's God is omnicient. Even many Christians believe in a Creator God who set things in motion but does not necessarily know where things are headed. Perhaps there is even evidence in the Bible (if one was to take it literally) that God is not omnicient. One could argue that if he knew that people would become evil, he'd not have lost his temper and wiped (most of) them out with the flood. As I recall, He then apologized to Noah and created the rainbow as a symbol that He's got his temper under control now and won't lose it again.

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong that we made the whole thing up (for example, we understand the physics of rainbows now), but I am suggesting that you're oversimplifying and not listening to other possibilities. There's the Sci Fi vision of our universe being a laboratory creation in some other universe. The creator scientist set things in motion and did so to see what would happen (not knowing this in advance). Was this scientist immoral to create our universe? Maybe some in his universe would argue that he was. I'm personally happy to have had the opportunity to live, love, create, etc. So, given the two options of THIS UNIVERSE or NOTHING, I'd choose THIS UNIVERSE.

If it is possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of God (or even whether or not God could be omnicient or "good" or whatever), I've not seen a convincing proof. My goal in the responses I've posted here is to keep people from making claims purported to be based on logic that do not follow logically from their arguments. In a sense (and quite ironically I suppose) I am playing devil's advocate in pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments that God CAN'T exist (or CAN'T have some property).

> If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

God doesn't learn ANYTHING, ever. He's omniscient. And you don't create a life form from nothingness in order to "teach it something" while requiring it to suffer horribly in the mean time. That's not moral behavior.

Luckily God isn't immoral as this would indicate. The reality is that we just made the whole thing up.

Everything in life is a test. How you respond to the challenges in your life determines your learning path and the person you end up being. Do you take the easy way, or the right way? No challenges-no learning.

Anyone who sits in their comfort zone and does not take risks is probably not growing as a person. Why would a compassionate God pluck us down in a cushy life so that we were unable to grow; to deny us the satisfaction of being creative or productive, experiencing growth, balancing losses with wins, and goal achievement? I'd rather not bother. Whether things have turned out according to there original design or not, perhaps this was the original plan. If God learns vicariously through our experiences, what would he learn if we all still lived in the Garden of Eden?

"Imagine a collective intelligence like ants where it’s Ok for a thousand ants to be crushed for the “greater good” and they don’t call it evil." I don't dispute that the concept of "evil" is a human creation. "What WE describe as evil ... " THAT's what I mean by evil (what else could I mean?). The fact that humans defined evil doesn't mean that things do not fit the definition. I was arguing that it is POSSIBLE that for us to experience HAPPINESS (also a human creation) might REQUIRE that there is suffering (evil if you prefer) in the world.

"How can you conclude that the Universe was designed ..." I'm sure this is not directed at me, but just in case .. I'm certain that I didn't state a conclusion that the Universe was designed (nor that humans occupy any particularly special part of it).

"__MY__ GOD? I made no claims to any God."

Sorry for that, didn't clearly. read what you wrote.

"PERHAPS evil is necessary for growth."

What WE describe as evil if of course necessary. But what we call evil is an abstract notion created by complex human minds, aided by centuries of evolution.

All creatures and humans are made from atoms and smaller particles.
Is one bunch of atoms in the Universe "evil" and the other not?

Who has decided what is evil and what is not? Humans have. WE have creation this notion of good and evil. When animals like whales exhibit behavior that we would call evil in humans, is it evil in whales too? So when human ancestors were as advanced as current day whales did they name things evil and good? No. So this notion of good and evil, right and wrong, only popped up when people started thinking and forming complex social interactions.

After all, killing and murdering of the handicapped is routine business for nature, but it's obvious that for all humans to live in relative peace, "evil" must be avoided by the vast majority of populace. Which is the basic framework for our concept of morality.

How can you conclude that the Universe was designed in a way that matches with what you see of life on earth? Maybe intelligent life on some other planet in another time would be very different than humans. Imagine a collective intelligence like ants where it's Ok for a thousand ants to be crushed for the "greater good" and they don't call it evil. In such a society, death would not be a bad thing and maybe people who suffer are immediately put to death. The "framework" that you imagine is highly human-centric and be-littles the Universe. Kind of like astrology, where the astrologers think the movements of planets far away have something to do with why your boss hates you.

First of all I would like to thank everyone who commented on my comment. I always prefer dialogue to monologue. Secondly I would like to apologise to Mr. Miessler for taking some of the attention away from his original piece. Thirdly I do not consider myself a christian, although I do think that Jesus was the greatest and most radical teacher to walk the earth. I just have a problem getting my head around the idea that he was the son of God and rose from the dead.

Point by Point:
annoyingmouse: God did not make us stupid and spineless. We choose the easy way out. I am no exception.

Jesus Christ: Thank you Jesus.(Sorry, i couldn't resist it) If man did not create God (certainly a possibility) Then God is what was there before anything else. He made us because he wanted to. Maybe somebody to love who would love him back. I don't know. I still think the choice is ours, individually and collectively.

Brad: I have occasionally bumped into or heard about a small number of deeply spiritual people who do not seem to be suffering at all, or at least not like the rest of us. I do not think that I am living in a fantasy world just because I believe that spiritual progress is possible for each individual. I myself am having a really hard time making any spiritual progress and I'm not even sure how I could measure it. With regard to choice, God would say that we do have those choices. We just have to ask him in Faith. Glib answer I know but I'm only a little way along this road and I'm still struggling with it.

A: God gave us the ability to choose not the ability to choose badly. If we choose badly, it's our fault. The main point I wanted to make was that everyone seems ready to put the blame on God for everything and take neither individual nor collective responsibility for anything. I am as guilty as anyone else when I choose to do nothing instead of something.

I've only recently started to dip my toes in the waters of 'comments' and this is the first time that I have received any response. I am happy to admit that I don't know everything and I thank you for your challenges to my thinking.

“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so cannot…. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither willing nor able, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent.”

That's only valid if we define "benevolent" in a particular way. PERHAPS evil is necessary for growth. PERHAPS you can't have the LITTLE evils in life without also having the BIG evils (much as mathematics can't have SOME negative numbers without having them ALL). PERHAPS the universe was put into motion with the framework that would lead to the greatest possible growth and deeply felt happiness and satisfaction for its inhabitants and that framework also (by necessity) contained suffering and evil. PERHAPS a choice was made NOT to have a stagnant universe in which (PERHAPS) there could be no DEEPLY felt happiness.

Once again, I guess I need to make clear that I am NOT stating my beliefs. I'm merely stating a LOGICALLY POSSIBLE situation (that some seem to not even recognize as a possibility).

Maybe the beauty we see in a sunrise is only perceived as beauty in contrast to the chaos of the world. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder .. and depends on what that beholder brings to the table in terms of past experience.

"And how did your god react to that?"

__MY__ GOD? I made no claims to any God. Don't put words in my mouth. The intention of my post was to steer people from putting words in themouths of others and from drawing unwarranted conclusions. I was merely trying to keep the discussion from becoming a barrage of emotional statements that lacked logical flow. I have never stated my own religious beliefs here.

Along this topic, I've always liked the below quote:

"The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so cannot.... If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither willing nor able, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent."

BAD ASS TITLE!

Well, you hit the nail on the head, "In the beginning...". This kind of goes towards my views on god. When god created the first thing other than himself, wasn't he still everything? If so, wasn't everything that was an aspect of him still a part of him? The only thing he wasn't, was limited. We are limited. He is infallible. We are prone to mistakes. He is without consequences and responsibilities, whereas we are. We, unlike him, bear the risk of liabilities, even risk itself, is rare to god, without us.

In short, we are living god's life, one he lives through us vicariously, but can still claim ownership over. We carry him even in denial, like the holy spirit, and everything we see that adds to the knowledge that each denomination grows by, so does he. Is not humanity so much more complex than 10,000 years ago? So has his complexity grown, since we have added to all, by science, by discovery, by contriving, do we also add to him.

"In the beginning...", he was the epitome of simplicity. God's future may be known, by some universal record, perhaps counting backwards unto an ending, but in the meantime we who claim ownership of his heritage and creeds, are basically what he can't be.

One human mistake is to anthropomorphize god, to make his intentions seem understandable. Wrath, Sloth, all the deadly sins, are interperetable in this manner, reading sins in gods actions. So are virtues, such as when people believe that god hoped good things on his flock when he created us.

The commonly followed statement rooted deep in our dogma answers this, that "god acts in mysterious ways." This being said, I must admit it seems kind of convenient to answer quick doubt, but I can believe this. Does an omniscient being not know what is in our minds? And how about us, with our limited knowledge, and our dependence on abstract conjecture, can we say we CAN know what's going on in god's mind? He is alien to us, having all powers, having all knowledge, he is as beyond our ability to understand as we are to a grain of sand.

What do we add to god that he didn't have before us? Perhaps time. Perhaps a sense of limitation. Maybe even an ability to explore what is possible, not what was already real.

As regarding god's involvement in original sin. One thing is for certain. God is the cause of all things. All the stars, evolution, Able's death, the Flood, all births, all deaths, so, yes, he was the origin of sin. But he also created gravity. And these are the rules we live by, not him. there is no authority to arrest god. That so being, we charge the most immediate sinner to the act, and each accomplice, until reason prevails and the authority pulls back.

Remember that last highschool final you failed? That was god's action too. Was it his fault? No, because it's his design. Does god's involvement remove blame from you? Obviously not. And so it is with Adam and Eve.

Can we choose to alter from his gift of temptation? Yes. Are we only subject to whims he made? Maybe, yet, again, human laws deal with human responsibilities and consequences. If a dog bites a child, the dog's owner is brought before court, not the dog, nor god, nor anything else we can say thinks like a human.

However, there also we touch on where responsibility lies, for we do not blame the execution of the man's frailties, his limitations, but the standards we uphold all men to be capable of. Man's powers are subject to our laws, not our weaknesses, for we know they exist, and that they are many.

So, with Adam and Eve, we would first prosecute their capacity for higher reasoning, and then their neglect of it in deference for temptation. God, as always, is immune from all liability, even prosecution.

(i'm tired. can i stop typing now?)

-=Timm=-

"A person who is afraid to make a mistake (because they have not learned how to recover from mistakes — or worse because they think that making a mistake is a sin) is a weaker person than one who understands that mistakes can be learning experiences."

Right. So Eve and Adam made their first and only mistake. And how did your god react to that? Yes, like all loving parents, he condemned them AND their children to enternal damnation. Thats as bizarre as the honor killings and honor rapes we hear about.

"The third part of that reply makes the case that is it not inconceivable that a creator God would choose to allow suffering (whether such a God is eternal or not is not relevant to this point)."

If you were god, what KIND of suffering would you allow? Would you watch your neighbors' five year old kid get raped for years and say nothing about it because "Where is the learning? Where is the growth?"

Yet, even as I write this, your god is witness to hundreds of kids getting raped (or "learning and growing") just like this.
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare1.com/Articles/N...

And according to christian doctrine, since the african above has not "accepted christ"(likely), what awaits him after death is more "learning and growth", in a more hotter place.

"You mean God is mortal and will die someday? Sweet!"

I didn't say that. When I say "parent" I mean "parent." I'm pretty transparent like that. But, I see your point. If God WILL be there forever to shield us, then the analogy with parents breaks down. I was really responding to A's bit about good parenting in the second part of my previous reply. The third part of that reply makes the case that is it not inconceivable that a creator God would choose to allow suffering (whether such a God is eternal or not is not relevant to this point).

"Second, I would argue that a parent who chooses to shield a child from every conceivable harm CAUSES HARM. We learn from our mistakes and grow stronger by overcoming problems. That sheltering parent will not be there forever..."


You mean God is mortal and will die someday? Sweet!

At the risk of offending EVERYONE, I feel the need to contribute something to this discussion. The comments are made in no particular order (well, perhaps they're in the order that makes them easier to understand as a group).

First, I don't think that ANY religion makes the claim the those who follow God live lives without suffering (EVERYONE suffers .. and EVERYONE knows this so it would be an absurd claim). The claim that is sometimes made by religions is that AFTER DEATH suffering will end (for some at least).

Second, I would argue that a parent who chooses to shield a child from every conceivable harm CAUSES HARM. We learn from our mistakes and grow stronger by overcoming problems. That sheltering parent will not be there forever and will have prevented their child from learning to stand on their own two feet. A person who is afraid to make a mistake (because they have not learned how to recover from mistakes -- or worse because they think that making a mistake is a sin) is a weaker person than one who understands that mistakes can be learning experiences. We all make mistakes. We all suffer. We (can) learn from both. A world without mistakes and suffering would be rather stagnant and uninteresting. I am glad that we do not inhabit such a world. (Some would say, "Thank God we don't live in such a world.") :)

Third, creating a world that includes suffering is not necessarily a sin - nor is making a mistake necessarily a sin. So, I guess I have to quarrel with the premise of the original post. I consider it bad parenting when parents shelter their children so much that when they enter the "real world" they are unprepared to handle the mistakes they are sure to make, the problems they are sure to encounter, and the suffering that they are sure to endure. A good parent takes the (difficult) step of letting their children make mistakes and helping them learn from those mistakes. It is not hard to argue that a creator God might take the same attitude. In any case, what would be the point in a world without suffering? Where is the learning? Where is the growth?

"It’s not God’s fault we are so stupid and spineless."
Ummm .. god made us that way. remember?

"He gave us the ability to choose. It’s not his fault we choose badly."

WHY did he give us the ability to choose badly? If you had the ability to give your own child the ability to never be a drug addict, pedophile, murderer, liar would you not do so? What does that say about your gods parenting skills?

"There are people who have decided to follow him and they live a life without suffering."

Your god is pathetic then. There are mothers who love their children and help them even if they are horrible human beings. If any of these human mothers were god, people would live a life without suffering even if they did not "follow" god. What would you do if you were a god?

"There are people who have decided to follow him and they live a life without suffering."

Your god has created people, like Andamanese and Amazon tribals, who suffer just like other humans, but have had NO access to your gods doctrine of "accepting" jesus since the beginning of civilization.

It would be one thing if he appeared in the dreams of all such tribals and explained this doctrine. But he CHOOSES not to do so. And then sends them to hell for not accepting this doctrine!

Remember, the vast majority of the worlds population is and was living just like these tribals.

Show me one person who leads a life without suffering, I truly believe there is no one. Everyone of us has friends and family who are prone to sickness and death, everyone of us deals with the hardships of growing up, going to school, finding a job, every day is full of suffering to some degree. I'm sorry Martin, but you are living in a complete fantasy world if you believe what you say.

God did not give us the ability to chose, if we had such an ability we could chose when to leave this world, if we wanted to go to heaven/hell, if we wanted to be healthy or sick, or the greatest singer, athlete or basket weaver. We do not have those choices. Many people aren't even given the choice of it they will have food or water that day because there simply is none, they are born into a world of suffering and famine.

Where is this God you speak of, I don't see him. It is him who is spineless, for not looking after his mistakes -- his children.

Who created god? (I believe man did)
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does god have free will? If he knows everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen, does he have any kind of choice? Did he have a choice of whether or not to make man? He saw what would happen today (8/16/07) just as he saw what would happen on 9/11 and yet he still chose to make us. Why?

Ah...ever hear of free will?

"It’s not God’s fault we are so stupid and spineless."

Heheh... yes it is, we're as stupid and spineless as God made us.
That's why he sent his only son to die on the cross for us. So we
can be stupid, spineless sinners, and still get into heaven.
You do accept Jesus into your heart don't you?

Yet another example of Man trying to blame God for his own shortcomings. Man had a choice then and Man has a choice now. We have chosen the world as it is now. It's not God's fault we are so stupid and spineless. He gave us the ability to choose. It's not his fault we choose badly. We can still choose to follow him if we can only develop the spiritual strength to do so. If we can't, then that's our problem. There are people who have decided to follow him and they live a life without suffering.