God in our Image?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mendalla said:
But all this assumes that God is the deeper connection. What if there is no God? What if your deeper connection is a myth?

And you always assume that the alternative to God is our own ego, which I know is not the case. The universe is a bigger thing than us. Our planet is a bigger thing than us. Our community is a bigger thing than us. We can recognize our part in that wholeness and work towards the greater good of all those things without having to see it as belonging to "God". It doesn't belong to us, either. In fact, we belong to it. I know this probably sounds a lot like "God" to you but there's a key difference: there is no bossy parson in the sky telling us what to do. We have to figure it out for ourselves by exploring our relationships, exploring our connectedness, and hope we get it right.
Click to expand...


I had to chuckle when I read "there's no bossy person in the sky" but I digress, anyhoo.........what tells you when you get it right?
 
Mendalla said:
And a believer is incapable of being superficial? Apparently, you don't know enough believers if you think that. Most of our environmental problems are the product of believers who consciously or unconsciously believed in dominionist theology; that God gave us the world to use. That's as ego-driven as any non-theistic philosophy I've come across and moreso than some. I know it's not your belief, but it is the most obvious sign that belief is not less (or more) driven by self-interest than any unbelief.
Click to expand...


I don't view these people as examples of holiness or true followers.....they may go to church and read scripture and say they follow God, but it seems you can see through them, so why use them as examples of believers even if that's what they call themselves?
 
Waterfall said:

I don't view these people as examples of holiness or true followers.....they may go to church and read scripture and say they follow God, but it seems you can see through them, so why use them as examples of believers even if that's what they call themselves?
Click to expand...

You are playing with the No True Scotsman fallacy. They are only believers if they believe like you or like you think they should. Sorry, that doesn't work. If someone defines themselves as a believer in God and says the creeds, then I'm going to treat them as such. Ditto atheists. They may not be GOOD believers, their beliefs may be harmful, but they are believers.

As for "holiness", what I am essentially arguing is that "holiness" may be a separate issue from belief. One can believe and not achieve "holiness" (as you rightly illustrate). One can not believe and still achieve "holiness" of a sort. I would also go further and suggest you and I don't ultimately get to decide "holiness". God, if there is one, does, and he is not beholden to your or I in determining it. If there is no God, there is likely no holiness because humans, as we know, are fallible and unlikely to achieve anything like holiness. The closest we come is being as good as we can possibly be.

All of this presuming some kind of definition of holiness, of course, which is another whole kettle of fish.

Waterfall said:
.what tells you when you get it right?
Click to expand...

I think I've done it right when my actions and values are aligned enough that I don't feel a disconnect. I think I've done it right when people and the world are helped, rather than harmed, by my actions. I think I've done it right when people, including me, are smiling at the end of whatever it is. But it's always "I think". I don't know in the end. Other people may actually know better than I do.

What tells you? I doubt you get a little thank you note from God or an angel coming down to compliment you.

Really, the difference between a believer and a non-believer is where the values underlying an action come from. Neither really has any better idea of whether they "got it right".
 
Mendalla said:
You are playing with the No True Scotsman fallacy. They are only believers if they believe like you or like you think they should. Sorry, that doesn't work. If someone defines themselves as a believer in God and says the creeds, then I'm going to treat them as such. Ditto atheists. They may not be GOOD believers, their beliefs may be harmful, but they are believers.

As for "holiness", what I am essentially arguing is that "holiness" may be a separate issue from belief. One can believe and not achieve "holiness" (as you rightly illustrate). One can not believe and still achieve "holiness" of a sort. I would also go further and suggest you and I don't ultimately get to decide "holiness". God, if there is one, does, and he is not beholden to your or I in determining it. If there is no God, there is likely no holiness because humans, as we know, are fallible and unlikely to achieve anything like holiness. The closest we come is being as good as we can possibly be.

All of this presuming some kind of definition of holiness, of course, which is another whole kettle of fish.



I think I've done it right when my actions and values are aligned enough that I don't feel a disconnect. I think I've done it right when people and the world are helped, rather than harmed, by my actions. I think I've done it right when people, including me, are smiling at the end of whatever it is. But it's always "I think". I don't know in the end. Other people may actually know better than I do.

What tells you? I doubt you get a little thank you note from God or an angel coming down to compliment you.

Really, the difference between a believer and a non-believer is where the values underlying an action come from. Neither really has any better idea of whether they "got it right".
Click to expand...

You know you got it right when your words and actions align with tbe Word of God. That's beyond, 'anything is okay so long as it feels good and doesn't harm others.'
 
Mendalla said:
As for "holiness", what I am essentially arguing is that "holiness" may be a separate issue from belief. One can believe and not achieve "holiness" (as you rightly illustrate). One can not believe and still achieve "holiness" of a sort. I would also go further and suggest you and I don't ultimately get to decide "holiness". God, if there is one, does, and he is not beholden to your or I in determining it. If there is no God, there is likely no holiness because humans, as we know, are fallible and unlikely to achieve anything like holiness. The closest we come is being as good as we can possibly be.

All of this presuming some kind of definition of holiness, of course, which is another whole kettle of fish.
.
Click to expand...


Curious what you mean by achieving holiness for an unbeliever?

 
Waterfall said:

Curious what you mean by achieving holiness for an unbeliever?
Click to expand...

I'm just using your language. It's not really the word I would use. To my eye, we are talking about showing the "fruits of the spirit", "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" per Paul as in Galatians. Wisdom was left off that list but I think it should be there, too. Really, being a good person, not in an absolute sense but in the sense of trying to do more help than harm in our relationships.
 
Mendalla said:
I think I've done it right when my actions and values are aligned enough that I don't feel a disconnect. I think I've done it right when people and the world are helped, rather than harmed, by my actions. I think I've done it right when people, including me, are smiling at the end of whatever it is. But it's always "I think". I don't know in the end. Other people may actually know better than I do.

What tells you? I doubt you get a little thank you note from God or an angel coming down to compliment you.

Really, the difference between a believer and a non-believer is where the values underlying an action come from. Neither really has any better idea of whether they "got it right".
Click to expand...

1.) disconnected from what?

2.) Can one be right, but people aren't smiling at the end of whatever it is?

3.) What tells me? Jesus is my Guide, scripture, God....of course you will say I am able to cherry pick what I want to hear, but if I really listen, sometimes I see....like you say, I'm not perfect.
 
1) That my actions are somehow not in harmony with my values. There's a definite sense of "wrongness" I get when that happens

2) Of course. People smiling was one indication, not meant to be the only one.

In the end, I am trying to make the point that what you believe isn't what makes you, or anyone else, good. It's how you live that belief. And that applies to all faiths and philosophies, theistic and not. That's all.
 
Mendalla said:
1) That my actions are somehow not in harmony with my values. There's a definite sense of "wrongness" I get when that happens

2) Of course. People smiling was one indication, not meant to be the only one.

In the end, I am trying to make the point that what you believe isn't what makes you, or anyone else, good. It's how you live that belief. And that applies to all faiths and philosophies, theistic and not. That's all.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between a person being a good person or not on the one hand, and a person doing good things or not on the other.
 
Jae said:
I think there's a difference between a person being a good person or not on the one hand, and a person doing good things or not on the other.
Click to expand...

True enough. A bad person can do good things. Mobsters are often good family men and give to charity and that sort of thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they kill people and sell heroin and that sort of thing. Being a good person means doing good things for good reasons and also not doing bad things. But belief is still only one part of motivation and both good and bad motivation can come from many different beliefs. So my final sentence still stands. Perhaps add the word "alone" after "what you believe".

Mendalla said:
In the end, I am trying to make the point that what you believe alone isn't what makes you, or anyone else, good. It's how you live that belief. And that applies to all faiths and philosophies, theistic and not. That's all.
Click to expand...
 
Mendalla said:
True enough. A bad person can do good things. Mobsters are often good family men and give to charity and that sort of thing, but that doesn't change the fact that they kill people and sell heroin and that sort of thing. Being a good person means doing good things for good reasons and also not doing bad things. But belief is still only one part of motivation and both good and bad motivation can come from many different beliefs. So my final sentence still stands. Perhaps add the word "alone" after "what you believe".
Click to expand...

Again, I draw a distinction between being good or not vs. doing good or not. As you say, a bad person can do good things. A good person can bad things. Whether we are good or bad is not determined by whether we do good or bad.
 
Mendalla said:
1)

In the end, I am trying to make the point that what you believe isn't what makes you, or anyone else, good. It's how you live that belief. And that applies to all faiths and philosophies, theistic and not. That's all.
Click to expand...

So if I believe an Islamic caliphate is good, as long as I live it, it's good?
If I believe in a Just War, it's all good?
How can living something demonstrate good when it can also demonstrate evil?

Surely goodness can't be defined this way?
 
crazyheart said:
Is there anyone who is good? We are human. We make mistakes
Click to expand...
True, but does that mean we shouldn't try to understand what is good or aim ourselves towards it? Otherwise one may as well throw up our hands and let the chips fall where they land and hope for forgiveness either from others or God or both, depending on what we believe.
 
Waterfall said:
Could they never learn to eat vegetation?
Click to expand...

Cats, for instance, cannot be vegetarians. They are biologically programmed to be carnivores. Besides, what do you have against plants? Why is it 'good' to eat plants? If it's that we don't care about the suffering of the organism, why is not okay culturally to eat insects?
 
BetteTheRed said:
Cats, for instance, cannot be vegetarians. They are biologically programmed to be carnivores. Besides, what do you have against plants? Why is it 'good' to eat plants? If it's that we don't care about the suffering of the organism, why is not okay culturally to eat insects?
Click to expand...
Then what is good , IYO?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top