BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Trial of God

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Spaids
10:54 / 27.12.01
Is anyone else familiar with Bill Hicks and his opinions on the whole 'GOD' thing? Or perhaps the Kevin Smith ideas on God put forward in Dogma? Does anyone here really feel, assuming God does exist as christianity would have us believe, that they have the full blown balls to challenge the divine right of a being older wiser and far more superior to us to do what ever the hell they like? Because I for one am not going to be the idiot standing on the mountain-top amidst the thunder storm, wearing copper armour screaming "God's a bastard!!". I have more sense than that.
 
 
Ganesh
10:59 / 27.12.01
Why, that'd be almost as ironic as ray-ee-ayn on my wedding day, that would!
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:46 / 27.12.01
Dao, yes, all right, I was getting carried away a bit. Big chunks of the thread just seem to want to skip the trial and get right onto the execution. Now I'll happily flip the switch myself if S/He's guilty, but I want to see some due fucking process first.

Assumption: The 'best' universe is a joy-joy happy one where every one has everything they want and nobody gets hurt.

Assumption: God lives up to the Hype of Hirs (?) own marketing department and is omnipotent etc, and can control every aspect of reality without changing the basic nature of the universe.

See, the way I see it this whole universe can only serve a purpose if there is such a thing as free will. This must include the ability to choose 'bad', 'evil' 'not a team player' or what ever you want to call it. As such a choice would cause suffering, I can see no way in which devine intervention and free will can coexist without giving everyone their own private universe to play in. Which could explain the scarcity of pillars of flame and stone tablets and whatnot.

Also, I don't think free will has any meaning unless there are consequences to each choice, which inevitably means some degree of unpleasantness to someone.

No, I don't think this universe is a 'nice' place for growing individual humans, on average. But I do wonder if it's maybe the best place for growing a sentient race. This place wouldn't exist in a happy joy-joy universe, for a start.
 
 
SMS
17:25 / 27.12.01
I sometimes wonder what people would say if the only choices we had were to be moral and amoral, but never immoral. Then we would have people saying that free will is necessary and that morality meant nothing without amorality.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
19:57 / 27.12.01
Interesting point, SMatthew, but i don't like it. if all options are either morally 'right' or neutral I figure perceptions will shift to make the amoral options 'wrong', relatively.

But that's just me.
 
 
Sharkgrin
11:54 / 29.12.01
I relent. God is guilty.
He split the earth and sky, paid all the power bills so far, but he can't cater the piss-ant, here-and-now politics, morality, and economic policies of those humans I can observe to my own personal taste and whims.
Sharkgrin's nominations for lifetime achievement award in:
Special Effects - God!
Astrophysics Theory and Application - God!
Nuclear Theory and Application - God!
Chemical Theory and Application - God!
Biological Theory and Application - God!
Political/Spriritual/Economic application according to Sharkgrin's personal whims? - I say run the son-of-a-bitch (God, that is) out of town.

[ 29-12-2001: Message edited by: Sharkgrin ]
 
 
Seth
14:06 / 29.12.01
If God's going on trial here, I'm not sure if any of us have truly grasped the position He's put us in. I'm not talking about free will - accusing God of giving us free will and complaining about the mess we've made as His fault is laughable. I'm talking about linear time. Now, if we take this thread's assumption that we're referring to the Christian God, why would He have created linear time if he is making us in His image, while He exists outside of time (according to the majority of theologians). We can lose things, there is no permanence, nothing is safe and secure, we grow old and die.

If you're going to question The Big Ineffable, at least get the prosecution to ask some decent questions.

Oh, Persephone: you’re too cute for your own good. Quoting the Bible will get you many Brownie Points!

It’s sad that this is how I get turned on...



[ 29-12-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ]
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:29 / 29.12.01
I think God's whole point through most of the above mentioned discourse with Job was that He is God, He can see farther than you, so what right do you have to question his plan? Sort of like a child questioning a parent's decision, although a theology student pal of mine always warns me of comparing the image of God to that of a Father (anthropomorphic-whatever the verb for that word is, right?), because all sorts of questions creep in, like why would any loving father sentence any of his children to eternal torture for the way he made them blah blah blah.

Kinda went off on a tangent there, sorry. Anyway, I have an issue with the "I know I made you the way you are, but you're still not good enough for me as I made you" thing. He gets no sympathy from me. But guilty? Of the crime of making this world the way it is, or of the nearly impossible standards for his acceptance? To the former, I'm not sure. I dont' know why he made the world, maybe he had his reasons, but whatever they were I can't judge them due to lack of knowledge. As for the latter, I say guilty of being a shitty parent, and should be punished accordingly.
 
 
Seth
17:44 / 29.12.01
Why does everyone assume that God's standards are too high for us? If we're genuinely going by Christian ontology surely that that's the exact opposite of the nature of God (regardless of what some of the fundies seem to be preaching)?
 
 
SMS
20:12 / 29.12.01
God's standards are impossible to reach, so he designed a loophole in the law, written in the human life of Jesus Christ, so that it would be possible for everyone to find Him. Is that right?
 
 
Seth
23:02 / 29.12.01
In a nutshell. There's more to it than that, but essentially Jesus was a way of letting us know that God considered us more important to Him than His "standards." Whatever those are.

So yeah, God already let us put Him on trial, and accepted the death sentence. I wrote a little bit about this in this thread:

quote: I have a developing idea (not yet fully formed, and only at the playful stage), that reality is not only God's fiction but God's hypersigil, and that by entering His own creation through Jesus He was able to rewrite facets of His own nature, while retaining His nature, forever unchanging. This is not an impossibility: an infinite and timeless being could conceivably create a Universe for the purposes of understanding Himself better. As He realises that there are aspects of Himself that need to change, He interacts with linear time via Jesus, writing His desired characteristics into the suit. The personality trait bleed-thorugh effect takes place, but is shifted into non-linear time, thus making the changes wrought an eternal aspect of God (ie: in order for a changeless non-linear being to change, He must interact with linear time). In effect, God and Jesus swapped places.

This isn't as potentially blasphemous as it sounds. Firstly, Jews believe (from what little I know) in a God that wasn't perfect – secondly, there is plenty of scriptural precedent for God changing His mind (or giving an indication that He may change His mind if certain conditions are met). It explains apparent differences in tone and the nature of God between Old and New Testaments, while still holding that they are the same infinite, unchanging being.

The use of Jesus as a fictionsuit effectively solves another problem: the idea of humaity as God's plaything. Of course, this is already partially solved by a conception of God as author of reality (interestingly, God is described as both author and perfecter in the Bible) – the writers I know (myself included) go to great pains to feel what their characters feel, suffering as they suffer, laughing as they laugh. Of course, this only gives God an understanding of what humanity is, not what it is to be human. One of the things that has always struck me about Jesus is His bravery: the desire of God to stub His own toe, to feel hungry and tired and have a crush on the girl who lives down the road and support the family business, and shit and piss with the rest of us (imagine being the girl that Jesus had His eye on!). And of course, this model only really makes sense if Jesus is to be discarded by God, and treated with the same impartiality as He treats us all (in a way, then, Jesus could have been God's salvation, nailed to the cross with God's imperfections as well as ours).


I've still got some way to go in order to fully gather my thoughts on the subject, but it's a start.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
13:03 / 30.12.01
That's a really neat idea.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply