mercy

[louis]

From Louis...
I keep hearing how "merciful" God is - how much He
loves us. If that's true, why does he allow so many
bad things to happen to good people ?
Some say it's always our own fault - we must have
done something to deserve it.
But surely that doesn't apply to innocent children
who get raped - even murdered - by sick adults.
Maybe God will eventualy punish those adults but
that won't erase the damage to the children.
Wouldn't it be more merciful for God to PREVENT
such things from happening ?
People do such things because of a chemical or
electrical fault in their brains. Surely a simple
thing for a God to correct ...

 

[iBrian]

I think the heart of the problem here is when people of faith expect God to help them out with one supernatural event after another.

I don't see it as God's responsibility to police outselves and dispense justice on us as a species. That's our collective human responsibility.

It reminds me of the joke:

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]There was once a religous man. One day it rained so much that his whole town was flooded. He sat on the roof hoping that the water would not rise. The water rose and he found himself floating in the water and says to himself "I need not worry. The lord will save me." About half an hour later a boat comes by and the captain says "Get in we'll save you!" and the man in the water replies "Thank you but the good lord will save me." the captain says "Suit yourself." and speeds away to rescue more people. another half and hour goes by and another boat comes by and the man says "The good lord will save me." so the boat speeds away. Fifteen minutes later a helicopter comes and yells "Grab the rope! we'll help you!" the man floating says "The good lord will save me!" so the helicopter leaves. 10 minutes pass and the man drowns. He gets to heaven and walks past the pearly gates. He finds god and asks him "God, why did you save me from the flood?" and God replies "What are you talking about!? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"[/size][/font]

 

[9Harmony]

I love that joke.

Very appropriate!

 

[Shih Yo Chi]

I think your question is the reason I had to change my perception of God from the Christian God I was taught as a child. I just couldn't come to grips with a God that had the power to change or prevent these things and didn't do something. I've heard the rationalizations, and they just don't ring true to me. I don't think that God can or could take an active part in our daily lives. That doesn't diminish his importance. I believe that God's work is done through us, we have to become the tools of God to affect change in the world and try to prevent bad things from happening. Perhaps his mercy can be felt through us if we chose to try to make a positive affect in this world.

It seems to me that the "God takes care of everything" philosophy places too much of the responsibility on God and not enough on us. Get in the boat.

 

[Marsh]

Theodicy or Human Wickedness?

I just couldn't come to grips with a God that had the power to change or prevent these things and didn't do something.

In my opinion, God is merciful; it's just that we don't understand his mercy because our idea of mercy is different than his. What is mercy, anyways? Personally, I think it is not getting the bad things that I really deserve (i.e. I sin, so I deserve to be punished, but God doesn't punish me)

On the issue of why bad things happen to good people...

A child gets molested. The child was as innocent as a child can be. The attack was not a judgment sent upon him by God; it was an attack that was perpetrated in cold-blood by a rapist. Whose fault is it that the child was molested: was it God's fault, or was it the rapist's?

I don't believe that every criminal act occurs because of chemical imbalance; I believe that many are the result of conscious decisions made by, well, wicked people. Could God prevent these crimes? Why not; after all, he's God. Why doesn't he? I'm not sure. And I'm also not sure that he doesn't.

We hear every day of tragic events that happen to innocent people. However, we don't hear of events where, miraculously, a serious crime was averted and an innocent life was spared. Such events are not considered newsworthy by the media, at least in my country. To say that God never helps is, I think, without a basis. To say that sometimes he does not help... I can agree that this statement is valid, or at least seems valid.

I say "seems valid" because, in the end, I don't think we know the whole story. Maybe the same people who get hurt as children experience joy in later years that the rest of us will not experience. Maybe they'll get privileged treatment after they die. Maybe not. But one thing I do know about God's mercy is this: if you'll accept it, he limited our lives from hundreds of years to less than one hundred years (usually), which saves us all centuries of suffering.

 

[iBrian]

Actually, on the point raised by Marsh - I seem to remember being told that in the commentary on Schindler's List, the Spielberg movie, lots of little incidents came up in researching survivor testimonials, where life seemed mysteriously saved. One I distinctly remember that made it into the film is of a guard's Luger inexplicably jamming when he tries shooting one of the characters on the ground in the camp.

Certainly it was humans who stopped the Nazis - eventually. But wasn't it always our repsonsibility to deal with them anyway?

 

[louis]

mercy, continued

I think the heart of the problem here is when people of faith expect God to help them out with one supernatural event after another.

I don't see it as God's responsibility to police outselves and dispense justice on us as a species. That's our collective human responsibility.

It reminds me of the joke:

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]There was once a religous man. One day it rained so much that his whole town was flooded. He sat on the roof hoping that the water would not rise. The water rose and he found himself floating in the water and says to himself "I need not worry. The lord will save me." About half an hour later a boat comes by and the captain says "Get in we'll save you!" and the man in the water replies "Thank you but the good lord will save me." the captain says "Suit yourself." and speeds away to rescue more people. another half and hour goes by and another boat comes by and the man says "The good lord will save me." so the boat speeds away. Fifteen minutes later a helicopter comes and yells "Grab the rope! we'll help you!" the man floating says "The good lord will save me!" so the helicopter leaves. 10 minutes pass and the man drowns. He gets to heaven and walks past the pearly gates. He finds god and asks him "God, why did you save me from the flood?" and God replies "What are you talking about!? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"[/size][/font]

From Louis...

First, let me welcome you all back on line...
Here's a wierd thought about "mercy" ....
When God was working out his design for life on this
planet, he was free to make it any way he wanted.
He designed PLANT life to maintain itself by taking inanimate chemicals out of the environment and converting them into nourishment - then releasing waste productucts that are beneficial, such as oxygen from trees.
But he designed ANIMAL life ( including humans ) to survive only by killing and eating other living things.
An animal that NEVER kills anything will starve, thus killing itself.
Wouldn't it have been more "merciful" if God had designed us all to be like plants ?
Or maybe some things are just plain necessary, whether
we think it's merciful or not ?

 

[iBrian]

glad to be online again, too.

I think your bottom line nails it - things are just necessary.

For example, we could complain about the loss of beauty and light when a star explodes - misunderstanding the fact that this process is essential for the development of heavy elements upon which our world - and our bodies - are composed of.

We could say that it's horrific that the dinosaurs were wiped from the earth - misunderstanding the fact that it was necessary for the evolution of a sentient ape that just might grow up to be a guardian for this planet.

The simple truth is that destruction is a driving force for order in the universe. Without this principle being enacted then - theoretically at least - then life would have remained a soup of bacteria, without any necessary stimuli for developing into more complex forms.

This has been observed, and cultures often relate to this process as "duality" in some form or other - which, frankly, can be simply interpreted as: "positive" as the things we like in the short term; and "negative" as the things we don't like in the short term. I would personally suggest that a lot of various "good" and "evil" dualities stem directly from this thinking and observation.

In one way it's like saying that we only approve of those forces of nature that benefit us immediately, without being able to accept that the other aspects of nature are not simply useful, but utterly necessary.

 

[Zazen]

i think the bottom line is, that with most religioins, 1 thing is stressed over many, which is simply to do good, is this because good is considered the positive or "right" thing, or is it because doing "good" will have a positive feedback on yourself, for example with karma, good inturn creates more good, and bad inturn creates more bad

therefore, maybe the reason, doing good is stressed so often in most religion, is because this is one method we have found to be a good tool for 'customizing' our reality to bend to our perceptions
for example, doing good deeds is one thing, but also, living a "good" lifestyle in comparison to one that is not so "good" is also a method in itself, which is clear in that if you lead a "good" life style, youll surround yourself with good things and people etc instead of what is classified as the "bad"

so in this i think theres something to consider, this though is only 1 aspect of most religions, not to sum them up entirely, theres also the mind to cultivate aswell..

amitabha

 

[louis]

customizing

i think the bottom line is, that with most religioins, 1 thing is stressed over many, which is simply to do good, is this because good is considered the positive or "right" thing, or is it because doing "good" will have a positive feedback on yourself, for example with karma, good inturn creates more good, and bad inturn creates more bad

therefore, maybe the reason, doing good is stressed so often in most religion, is because this is one method we have found to be a good tool for 'customizing' our reality to bend to our perceptions
for example, doing good deeds is one thing, but also, living a "good" lifestyle in comparison to one that is not so "good" is also a method in itself, which is clear in that if you lead a "good" life style, youll surround yourself with good things and people etc instead of what is classified as the "bad"

so in this i think theres something to consider, this though is only 1 aspect of most religions, not to sum them up entirely, theres also the mind to cultivate aswell..

amitabha

From Louis ....
That's an appropriate phrase - "customising our reality" .
I have long suspected that is what all religion is about -
imagining things we would LIKE to be true , then treating
those things as if they were ACTUALY true - "wishful thinking" - institutionalised and buried in metaphorical
language to hide its true nature.
I say "suspected", but seldom voiced aloud for fear of
getting myself in trouble.
But I'm just someone who likes to turn over rocks -
poke sticks in anthills - that sort of thing...
Feel free to retaliate....

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Louis!

That's an appropriate phrase - "customising our reality" .
I have long suspected that is what all religion is about -
imagining things we would LIKE to be true , then treating
those things as if they were ACTUALY true - "wishful thinking" - institutionalised and buried in metaphorical
language to hide its true nature.
I say "suspected", but seldom voiced aloud for fear of
getting myself in trouble.
But I'm just someone who likes to turn over rocks -
poke sticks in anthills - that sort of thing...
Feel free to retaliate....

I would like to believe no one here has any reason to retaliate, your question is as valid as any other I have seen here.
Perhaps what you said about religion ("institutionalised and buried in metaphorical language") holds some merit, but might I suggest a mildly different spin.
I realize there are those who believe humanity can be moral towards each other without "religion", yet I feel that religion serves the purpose of instilling morality. In the absence of religion, there is no genuine cause or need for morality, or at least the outward appearance of morality. The result of the absence of religion is a moral vacuum, in my opinion.
We become what we believe we will become. If we hold a jaded attitude towards life, we become jaded. If we hold a hopeful attitude, we become hopeful. Religion instills a hopeful attitude.
Perhaps that is buried in metaphorical language. Yet, we must begin somewhere. We must crawl before we can walk, we must walk before we can run. In my humble opinion, it is better to believe in something, than to believe in nothing. If one is truly insightful, then one can seek that that is "good" in others, even in those you may disagree with "religiously." In other words, seek the wisdom and morality without becoming hung up on dogma. So often it seems, at least to me, that the morality is in the spirit of the lesson; not in the letters, the grammar, and the authoritative interpretation that spell out the lesson.

 

[louis]

But one thing I do know about God's mercy is this: if you'll accept it, he limited our lives from hundreds of years to less than one hundred years (usually), which saves us all centuries of suffering.

From Louis...
Forgive my ignorance of religeous dogma, but upon what do you base this idea of "limiting our lives" ? Suppose we did live for centuries - why would it have to be in "suffering" ?
Why do so many believers percieve life to filled with
"bad things" that cannot be avoided without "divine" help ?
Aren't WE alone responsible for whether we make our lives painful or pleasurable ?

 

[louis]

[I realize there are those who believe humanity can be moral towards each other without "religion", yet I feel that religion serves the purpose of instilling morality. In the absence of religion, there is no genuine cause or need for morality, or at least the outward appearance of morality. The result of the absence of religion is a moral vacuum, in my opinion.
We become what we believe we will become. If we hold a jaded attitude towards life, we become jaded. If we hold a hopeful attitude, we become hopeful. Religion instills a hopeful attitude.

From Louis...
You seem to be saying : Hope for the best but prepare
for the worst . Yeah, but isn't that just common sense ?
Why do we need to have anything "instilled" in us ?
One thing God must possess is the ability for coherent
thought. If he included that same ability when He
designed humanity, was there really a need to do more ?
Isn't it enough to simply acknowledge that we have much
more to learn and work to correct that ?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Louis!

You seem to be saying : Hope for the best but prepare for the worst .

Almost, but not quite.

Yeah, but isn't that just common sense ?

Now you're headed in the right direction.

Why do we need to have anything "instilled" in us ?

If "instill" is too esoteric for you, substitute the word teach, and connect the dots... Why do we need to have anything taught to us?

One thing God must possess is the ability for coherent thought. If he included that same ability when He
designed humanity, was there really a need to do more ?

Of course. Coherent thought is not moral(ity) in and of itself. Many animals exhibit elemental morality, and they have no rational thought. Rational thought can easily be used towards immorality.

Isn't it enough to simply acknowledge that we have much more to learn and work to correct that ?

No. Acknowledgement without action is simply a mental crutch. So, depending what you mean by "work to correct that", is whether or not you are focused in the correct direction.
You do not require religion to be moral. However, it takes an exceptional person to remain moral in the absence of religion. Likewise, religion is no guarantee of morality, but it does provide an outlook or view that makes morality more acceptable and easier to bear. When one sees themselves as accountable for their actions, to whatever authority beyond them, they are much more likely to "play by the rules." With no accountability, there is no reward, and no (apparent) incentive to play by the rules, so why bother? Of course, our collective inherent sense of equity and fair play means that most likely, the one not playing by the rules will be treated in a similar manner by those s/he has wronged. One way or another, society will bring morality to bear on the individual, whether your momma teaches you, your church teaches you, your school teaches you, or the courts teach you. If you refuse to learn, well, you draw the conclusion.

 

[louis]

Kindest Regards, Louis!Almost, but not quite.
Now you're headed in the right direction.
If "instill" is too esoteric for you, substitute the word teach, and connect the dots... Why do we need to have anything taught to us?
Of course. Coherent thought is not moral(ity) in and of itself. Many animals exhibit elemental morality, and they have no rational thought. Rational thought can easily be used towards immorality.
No. Acknowledgement without action is simply a mental crutch. So, depending what you mean by "work to correct that", is whether or not you are focused in the correct direction.
You do not require religion to be moral. However, it takes an exceptional person to remain moral in the absence of religion. Likewise, religion is no guarantee of morality, but it does provide an outlook or view that makes morality more acceptable and easier to bear. When one sees themselves as accountable for their actions, to whatever authority beyond them, they are much more likely to "play by the rules." With no accountability, there is no reward, and no (apparent) incentive to play by the rules, so why bother? Of course, our collective inherent sense of equity and fair play means that most likely, the one not playing by the rules will be treated in a similar manner by those s/he has wronged. One way or another, society will bring morality to bear on the individual, whether your momma teaches you, your church teaches you, your school teaches you, or the courts teach you. If you refuse to learn, well, you draw the conclusion.

From Louis...

You seem to be saying : We reap what we sew
which is really just more common sense.
"Good" behaviour or actions which promote harmony,
comfort and peace make more sense than actions which
cause pain, discord and destruction.
Surely no one needs divine help to figure that out.

Of course, there are some who act only to promote
their OWN comfort and profit regardless of any pain and
destruction may be caused to others.

 

[juantoo3]

You seem to be saying : We reap what we sew
which is really just more common sense.
"Good" behaviour or actions which promote harmony,
comfort and peace make more sense than actions which
cause pain, discord and destruction.
Surely no one needs divine help to figure that out.

Disregarding Karma for the moment, this presupposes some form of equity or fairness in life that doesn't exist. "All men are created equal" is a wonderful sentiment, but it is not an established fact. It is a political nicety brought about (in greater and lesser degree) by collective social will. So no, it is not "just common sense."

Of course, there are some who act only to promote
their OWN comfort and profit regardless of any pain and
destruction may be caused to others.

Bingo! Unless and until an individual is brought to realize this (not just think it), it is a meaningless concept with no practical application.

 

[samabudhi]

In my opinion, God is merciful; it's just that we don't understand his mercy because our idea of mercy is different than his.

He's supposed to be helping us, so why doesn't he use words we're familiar with then?

What is mercy, anyways? Personally, I think it is not getting the bad things that I really deserve (i.e. I sin, so I deserve to be punished, but God doesn't punish me)

And this is a good thing? Tell me...If a parent were as inconsistent with a child as much as a merciful God is with his people, then wouldn't he be failing in his duties? We learn by repetition. If you break that, then the child/person is thrown into chaos. The problem with drunk parents is that they are inconsistent and the child is in fear because he/she doesn't know what will come next. Even a harse disciplinarian is better than a loose cannon, because the child can live without fear; he knows what to expect.

I don't believe that every criminal act occurs because of chemical imbalance; I believe that many are the result of conscious decisions made by, well, wicked people.

There is no such thing as wicked people. Every freak has a history. Do you know how Geoffrey Darma (spelling?) was treated by his mother? Terribly. Look it up, its interesting. No-one is born evil. This is a terrible way of looking at things. I don't understand why you don't accept this? Maybe you could explain please?

We hear every day of tragic events that happen to innocent people. However, we don't hear of events where, miraculously, a serious crime was averted and an innocent life was spared. Such events are not considered newsworthy by the media, at least in my country. To say that God never helps is, I think, without a basis. To say that sometimes he does not help... I can agree that this statement is valid, or at least seems valid.

So if God blows hot and cold like the weather, isn't it naive to think that you can con him into helping you more than others just by 'worshipping' him?

I suppose you'll say that worshipping is not enough, you have to do good etc. Well sure. But then is it doing good or worshipping which does the trick. I'm sure you'll find, looking at many examples in the world today, that the answer is doing good (which can be done without beliefs) and not worship. I would venture an explanation of the importance of worship though, and this is that in order to do good (which essentially means not being selfish), you need to devote yourself to someone else. Since you believe that some people are evil however, you probably wouldn't agree with devoting yourself to everyone else, but rather to someone whose character cannot accurately be perceived. So you invent God, a higher all benevolent being above all quesion, in order to fit the place of your archetypal 'chief' whom you can devote yourself to. We see this done in society where the president (the modern chief) is often above all question, especially in communist governments. This is why they clash with religion all the time. In England, the head of the church was in constant battle with the king for control of the people.

I propose, in all humility, that you set aside your prejudices, suspend judgement of others, and devote your attention to people, and see how it works out.

You seem to be saying : We reap what we sew

I think you mean : 'I stood in some doo.'
(just kidding)

Surely no one needs divine help to figure that out.

People need whatever help they can get. Nothing is obvious and one should always be open to suggestions.

 

[louis]

When one sees themselves as accountable for their actions, to whatever authority beyond them, they are much more likely to "play by the rules." With no accountability, there is no reward, and no (apparent) incentive to play by the rules, so why bother?

From Louis...
Forgive me if find your words a bit cynical - almost "anti-altruistic"...
I'm not very charitable myself, but I know some people are just NATURALY honest, moral and good to their fellow humans. They don't act out of hope for a reward or because they fear the cosquences of NOT being good . They just ENJOY being good.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Louis!

When one sees themselves as accountable for their actions, to whatever authority beyond them, they are much more likely to "play by the rules." With no accountability, there is no reward, and no (apparent) incentive to play by the rules, so why bother? -jt3

From Louis...
Forgive me if find your words a bit cynical - almost "anti-altruistic"...
I'm not very charitable myself, but I know some people are just NATURALY honest, moral and good to their fellow humans. They don't act out of hope for a reward or because they fear the cosquences of NOT being good . They just ENJOY being good.

I have heard this line of thought before, but it has never been supported by example. To me, it does not make rational or logical sense. It is an unfounded presumption.

So, tell you what. If you can show me facts to support your position, I will then elaborate further why I made the comments I did. I would think that to be fair and reasonable.

Until then, I stand by my assertion that morality is taught.