What has happened to the God of love?

[_JAK]

A God of love created mosquitoes, leeches, ticks, cholera, cancer, leprosy and so many other terrible and painful things for us, his loved children?

No evidence has been established for God. No evidence was previously established for gods. But the evolution in human thinking is a reduction in gods.

With discovery about what in fact causes disease, with discovery about the particulars of evolution of life on the planet, “requirements” for gods has been greatly diminished. That is most likely to continue.

Today, the most well educated are looking for reason and explanation. Cause is relevant. Religious myth and invention of gods is irrelevant.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

You and I clearly define love differently. I would include "not killing" as part of the love. From passages in the the Old Testament, the god of the Old Testament evidently includes killing nonbelievers as part of love.

I'm not persuaded by the tortured mental gymnastics of believers who somehow have to accommodate the long list of commanded atrocities in the Old Testament. I seriously doubt a real god would have commanded these atrocities. Period. Consequently, I reject the diety claims of the Old Testament god.

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

[_JAK]

You and I clearly define love differently. I would include "not killing" as part of the love. From passages in the the Old Testament, the god of the Old Testament evidently includes killing nonbelievers as part of love.

I'm not persuaded by the tortured mental gymnastics of believers who somehow have to accommodate the long list of commanded atrocities in the Old Testament. I seriously doubt a real god would have commanded these atrocities. Period. Consequently, I reject the diety claims of the Old Testament god.

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

Pay your money, take your pick.

That is, Nehor, you can believe anything you want. It does not need to be rational. It does not need to fit the facts. It requires no basis. Just believe what you wish.

You can make it up. If you’re less imaginative, you can rely on some doctrine or dogma. You can kill people. You can favor genocide (as God does as invented in the Old Testament). You can favor treating people with genuine respect and love -- just claim a God invented in another time favors it. ...Just anything you like, Nehor. Make it up as you go. Nevermind any thoughtful contradictions. Nevermind intellectual integrity.

It’s religion. Anything goes!

JAK

[_moksha]

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

I think you are absolutely right Nehor. God has too often been made the fall guy for justifying bad behavior. More recently, I can think of the example of the Priesthood ban on Africans within our own Church. They claimed it was from God! Fortunately, we are now on the right course and maybe in a century hence, the Church will feel up to admitting this mistake. Things can always be made right with God because He is all loving.

[_Yoda]

I have been extremely edified spiritually with my Primary calling this year. The theme for the Sacrament Meeting program is "I'll Follow Him in Faith". There is a picture of Christ holding a child on the front cover. The opening sentence by the Primary General Presidency is: "This year in sharing time, we will teach a basic principle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints----faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

The emphasis is very upbeat. The music and Sharing Time themes are focussed on Christ, and the love he has for us.

Gotta love Primary! :)

I think it's a step in the right direction.

I think that Nehor has a good point about quality teaching, but I also think that quantity can play into this as well.

Why not "get back to basics"?

When was the last time we had a Sunday School lesson on the Sermon on the Mount?

I think it would be great to have more emphasis on Christ's life and His teachings, instead of this silly rotation they have going right now, where you only study the New Testament once every four years.

[_The Nehor]

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

I think you are absolutely right Nehor. God has too often been made the fall guy for justifying bad behavior. More recently, I can think of the example of the Priesthood ban on Africans within our own Church. They claimed it was from God! Fortunately, we are now on the right course and maybe in a century hence, the Church will feel up to admitting this mistake. Things can always be made right with God because He is all loving.

Religion can be a great force of good but it also has the ability to override conscience among the worst of humanity.

My study of history has shown me that the most religious people tend to be good people or utter bastards. The bastards tend to make God in their own image. The greatest method of overriding all morality is to scream that, "God Wills It!". I think that the Book of Job is the best response. Job protests what happens as unjust and unfair. His three friends justify God by placing him above morality. Job continues applying it relentlessly to try to make sense of it all. God justifies Job who tries to figure it out and condemns his friends who give up any attempt to figure out God's morality.

The worst people in religion take the tact of Job's friends.

[_The Nehor]

Pay your money, take your pick.

That is, Nehor, you can believe anything you want. It does not need to be rational. It does not need to fit the facts. It requires no basis. Just believe what you wish.

You can make it up. If you’re less imaginative, you can rely on some doctrine or dogma. You can kill people. You can favor genocide (as God does as invented in the Old Testament). You can favor treating people with genuine respect and love -- just claim a God invented in another time favors it. ...Just anything you like, Nehor. Make it up as you go. Nevermind any thoughtful contradictions. Nevermind intellectual integrity.

It’s religion. Anything goes!

JAK

I believe in the God I talk to every night. That is my basis. If I believed what I wished God would be much less strict about some of my behavior.

Intellectual integrity? It would be a lie for me to deny what has happened to me and what I have discovered. If you haven't found God at all JAK, that's fine. But please don't have a smug air of superiority over rejecting something that was never in your grasp.

[_JAK]

Pay your money, take your pick.

That is, Nehor, you can believe anything you want. It does not need to be rational. It does not need to fit the facts. It requires no basis. Just believe what you wish.

You can make it up. If you’re less imaginative, you can rely on some doctrine or dogma. You can kill people. You can favor genocide (as God does as invented in the Old Testament). You can favor treating people with genuine respect and love -- just claim a God invented in another time favors it. ...Just anything you like, Nehor. Make it up as you go. Nevermind any thoughtful contradictions. Nevermind intellectual integrity.

It’s religion. Anything goes!

JAK

I believe in the God I talk to every night. That is my basis. If I believed what I wished God would be much less strict about some of my behavior.

Intellectual integrity? It would be a lie for me to deny what has happened to me and what I have discovered. If you haven't found God at all JAK, that's fine. But please don't have a smug air of superiority over rejecting something that was never in your grasp.

Show us the evidence, Nehor. It’s easy to make claim after claim with no support but your word. Easy and unreliable. Others have different perceptions than you and are equally certain their perceptions are correct.

You can talk to the tooth fairy every night. No evidence have you presented for your claims. If you think that sounds familiar, it does. Your claims are not established by your pontificating that your experiences are more than your imagination combined with your previous indoctrination.

It’s easy to evade direct response to questions and analysis as you have done consistently. It’s also disingenuous.

A “what has happened to me (you)” is sufficiently vague and absent anything resembling rational, transparent, objective observation as to be without merit (as you have been evasive and vague).

Just what have you discovered? So long as you use vague, undefined, ambiguous reference, you may feel safe. But that is disingenuous as well.

I submit that you are actually fearful to set forward the details hidden in your generalized claims. Given numerous opportunities to be exacting, you demonstrate that you prefer cloak, smoke, and obfuscation for “what I (you) have discovered.”

Attempting a personal attack of those who question you demonstrates your incapacity to address the challenges.

You continue to assume that which has not been established by you.

Nehor stated:
But please don't have a smug air of superiority over rejecting something that was never in your grasp.

You have not established a “something.” To further claim “that was never in your (my) grasp” is vague, obtuse, ambiguous, dubious, and enigmatic.

You continue to evade rather than articulate with clarity. Why?

I submit it’s because you have nothing to articulate here. You have empty words which are opaque and irrational.

Of course you have the opportunity to demonstrate this analysis to be incorrect by clarity of statement.

Everyone has things happen to them, Nehor. However, not everyone imagines or relies upon some supernatural myth rather than focused understanding of detail which is grounded in rational thought.

Feel good emotional highs do not constitute an assumed God. The illusion of “I talk to God every night” suggests emotional instability.

Are we to also suppose your illusion includes your God talks back? --Speaks in English, we might presume. --Speaks with a male voice, we might presume. --Speaks to you only, we might presume. --And of course you can provide no evidence for any God notions which you wish to keep concealed from scrutiny.

As I observed: It’s religion. Anything goes.

Well, I talk to the tooth fairy and it would be a lie to deny any conversations the tooth fairy and I have had or to deny what has happened to me with the tooth fairy. But, you cannot see the tooth fairy because you have not found the tooth fairy at all, Nehor. And that’s fine.

I expect no response, Nehor.

But your imperious, pontifical, egotistic yet evasive, oblique, and uncandid comments should be viewed with the greatest skepticism.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

A “what has happened to me (you)” is sufficiently vague and absent anything resembling rational, transparent, objective observation as to be without merit (as you have been evasive and vague).

Just what have you discovered? So long as you use vague, undefined, ambiguous reference, you may feel safe. But that is disingenuous as well.

I submit that you are actually fearful to set forward the details hidden in your generalized claims. Given numerous opportunities to be exacting, you demonstrate that you prefer cloak, smoke, and obfuscation for “what I (you) have discovered.”

Attempting a personal attack of those who question you demonstrates your incapacity to address the challenges.

You continue to assume that which has not been established by you.

You have not established a “something.” To further claim “that was never in your (my) grasp” is vague, obtuse, ambiguous, dubious, and enigmatic.

You continue to evade rather than articulate with clarity. Why?

I submit it’s because you have nothing to articulate here. You have empty words which are opaque and irrational.

Of course you have the opportunity to demonstrate this analysis to be incorrect by clarity of statement.

Feel good emotional highs do not constitute an assumed God. The illusion of “I talk to God every night” suggests emotional instability.

Are we to also suppose your illusion includes your God talks back? --Speaks in English, we might presume. --Speaks with a male voice, we might presume. --Speaks to you only, we might presume. --And of course you can provide no evidence for any God notions which you wish to keep concealed from scrutiny.

As I observed: It’s religion. Anything goes.
JAK

I'm NOT talking about vague experiences. That you would call them vague experiences solidifies in my mind that you don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about and that you have in face NEVER had a similar experience. This is akin to claiming my analysis of a book is incorrect when you've never read the book.

How much clearer do you want me to be? I've explained what has happened to me on this board many, many times. Then you dismiss what I'm saying and accuse me of emotional instability and keep calling it 'feel good' situations. IT IS NOT. If you don't believe what I'm saying at least just call me liar instead of reinterpreting everything I say through your lens of total disbelief and relegating all religious experiences to the vagaries of self-induced emotion.

What do you expect God to talk to me in? Some vague proto-language? Adamic? Enochian? That might pose a problem as I would have no idea what the hell it was talking about. No, the voice is not exclusively male. If you wanted to know, you could have asked instead of guessing and imputing to me your own stereotypes. No, I don't think God talks exclusively to me. However I am not a competent judge of anyone else's experiences. Neither are you come to think of it.

Okay, you accuse me of being vague and a host of other things for saying that you've never had a spiritual experience. I apologize if I was wrong. Please recount some sample experiences for us and I will gladly retract my comment.

[_JAK]

Nehor stated:
I'm NOT talking about vague experiences. That you would call them vague experiences solidifies in my mind that you don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about and that you have in face NEVER had a similar experience. This is akin to claiming my analysis of a book is incorrect when you've never read the book.

Nothing you have expressed details particulars. Hence you write in vague, generalized terms. Rather than give specificity to your claims, you attack the one who challenges you.

You say: “That you would call them vague experiences solidifies in my mind that you don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about...”

You give nothing to display specification of anything you reference. Attacking the one asking questions only undermines your murky, shadowy, and veiled reference. And so you are indeed talking about vague and likely emotional feelings.

My experiences are not at issue, yours are. You make the claims. You fail to support them with detail. The issue is not a “book.” The issue is your claim about your experiences. And you are vague.

Nehor stated:
How much clearer do you want me to be? I've explained what has happened to me on this board many, many times. Then you dismiss what I'm saying and accuse me of emotional instability and keep calling it 'feel good' situations. IT IS NOT. If you don't believe what I'm saying at least just call me liar instead of reinterpreting everything I say through your lens of total disbelief and relegating all religious experiences to the vagaries of self-induced emotion.

You explained nothing which cannot be understood in rational assembly of factual data. Either quote yourself or link us to the exact post in which you claim you have “explained.” Denial that you are having emotional experience does not establish that here.

That you may believe some mystical impression does not negate rational analysis. So, it’s not that you are a “liar” (your word -- I didn’t use it). Rather it’s that your emotional link to your own life’s experience is not reliable as an objective source.

You have made no refutation for what I have presented:

Religious myths are unreliable.
For example:
· Religious myths disagree with one another
· Claimed “spiritual” anything is saturated with emotions
· Personal experiences are often colored by past experience
· Personal experiences are often manipulated by religious dogma/doctrine
· Belief in that for which there is no objective, solid evidence is capricious.

From your vague writings and continuous reference to God myths, you appear as one who relies on your emotions and religious dogma rather than rational thought.

If that is not the case and if you consider that you’re a rational person, your words/posts do not demonstrate that.

You have presented no evidence for God claims.
You have presented no evidence for spiritual anything.

Nehor stated:
What do you expect God to talk to me in? Some vague proto-language? Adamic? Enochian? That might pose a problem as I would have no idea what the hell it was talking about. No, the voice is not exclusively male. If you wanted to know, you could have asked instead of guessing and imputing to me your own stereotypes. No, I don't think God talks exclusively to me. However I am not a competent judge of anyone else's experiences. Neither are you come to think of it.

You appear to be uninformed regarding the emergence and evolution of God myths. Like the English language, they evolved in human history. The English Language is at a point far different than it was even 200 years ago and certainly far different than it was many centuries ago. Words have been added. Concepts and understandings have been added. False ideas have been discarded.

With ancient mythologies, they too have evolved over time. It’s just that from our very tiny, tiny space of time on this planet as a single human life, we generally fail to appreciate the evolution/change in religious myth. In addition, religious myth is perpetuated by groups in power and which wish to remain in power. Hence, religious myth is slow to change. It’s unreliable because of its methodology.

Truth by assertion is the flawed device of religious myth. Compare that with truth by genuine discovery.

In honest, transparent knowledge, we have impartial, objective observation. We have reliable conclusions as a result of avoiding claims absent evidence to support them. Your computer works because... That is, there are clear known causal links for applied science. There is reason which everyone can see, test, and challenge as they wish.

Religious myth has no such safeguards. Personal emotions also have no such safeguards.

There is no voice except as a result of your environment and exposure to religious dogma. If you were Muslim, you would claim an entirely different experience. Hence, religious myths are unreliable. And voices you perceive you hear are product of your religious indoctrination, imagination, and claims.

That was the point of my example with you previously. You can make it up. Then you can attack those who are skeptical of your claims as you are here.

Rather than establishing your claims, you create greater skepticism by dodging direct questions and by failure to provide a detailed account which is open for all to see, to test, to view with objectivity.

Your computer and the Internet (our common denominator in these discussions) is documented in every detail of applied science. While we may understand very little of it, we can use it. It’s reliable. If it fails, there is a cause a reason for failure. Spiritual anything is irrelevant. The latter is not established.

No evidence has been established for anything supernatural or spiritual or God as you claim by implicit and explicit assertion. Hence, your claims are unreliable.

Nehor stated:
Okay, you accuse me of being vague and a host of other things for saying that you've never had a spiritual experience. I apologize if I was wrong. Please recount some sample experiences for us and I will gladly retract my comment.

The issue continues to be your claims absent evidence. And you are vague in use of words which can mean anything you want them to mean (“Alice in Wonderland” if you know the story).

No evidence for “spiritual experience” has been presented or established. It’s a euphemism for emotional feeling. No distinction has been made. While “spiritual” as a term may come from ancient myths, “emotions” represent a much more advanced understanding of human mentality (and some other animal's mentality).

That is not to suggest that all human emotions are negative or should be avoided. On the contrary, a mother’s love for her family and the love families have for one another can be beneficial and positive. But that human emotion can be understood in terms of psychology and psychiatry (a part of medical science).

If you are to convince us about particular religious myths, you have the burden of proof for your claims.

You appear to consider that just making claims is sufficient. It’s not. When challenged, rather than supply clear, detailed explanations, you attack the persons asking you questions. Ad hominem fails to establish anything for you.

JAK