The eternally benevolent God...

Post Reply New Topic

The only thing that makes me cringe a bit about that phrasing - if you want to see nosebleed Phd-level conversation on topics you'd want to go to the Science and Technology forum and see some of the proofs and conversations that people are having about the real, imaginary, etc. number sets. What I'm talking about is probably a lot closer to late-highschool or early-college level of complexity, it's just that unfortunately it's on a taboo topic and there's a sort of bizarre paradox where the less a person knows the more they feel like they know all there is to know. Past the unfamiliarity it's not really that heady. There are heady thinkers on this stuff who go into nosebleed Phd-level conversation but a lot of that, while I find it interesting, I feel uncomfortable talking about it - mainly that it goes way beyond my lived experience and I can't vet it.

Similarly I worry a bit when words like 'wise', 'deep', 'smart' come out on this sort of thing, I'm not sure if it's just because a lot of people feel like this topic is too close to the vest and it intimidates them just for that reason but there's another group of people who'd snicker and think of that dynamic as proof that anyone who talks about it at that level is some sort of self-made guru. Again, it's a topic wrapped with taboos and people itching to jump the gun on every piece of it.

All that said I really liked this guy's blog post 'A Scientific Defense of Panpsychism' as he's sussing the topic of panpsychism out I think quite well and gets to the idea that, much like electricity is latent in the world in potential but shows itself when the right activities are present he's got a similar feel for what's happening with subjectivity in the universe:

https://thegemsbok.com/art-reviews-and- ... ectricity/

When people do have experiences of anything of the lets say mystical variety there's a sense that they sort of stepped into or on a current or live wire. Obviously a guy like the one who wrote the article above has to tread very carefully considering his audience, for where I've been and enough people I've met I'd say there are quite good odds that there are currents of this across the planet and not necessarily tied to neurons. In a way I guess the experiential stuff is difficult to convey in words because there's a lot to unpack in what it indicates but suffice to say it's just a different way of thinking and, maybe this is what bothers people, it gets rid of the need for any of it to be 'supernatural'.

Ok. I read the article. The first two sections I do not understand. Although I may know the meanings of all the words, I don't really understand what he is talking about. When we move onto evolutionary biology, it's a different story. Biology was my original field of study.

From my limited understanding, what he is saying seems quite reasonable. I've lived long enough for the things I learned (and taught!) in college have been turned upside down: nerves can regenerate, continental drift did occur, there are dark reactions going on in plants that use oxygen.

I'm not sure why this is controversial since no one else has a credible explanation. The more we learn in biology about what "lower" animals and plants can do, it seems likely that all the things that humans do "evolved" gradually in a gradient. There are some characteristics that possibly came about quickly (in evolutionary terms) but these are not the rule.

Or am I on the wrong track entirely? I am a pattern learner so need to see things over and over until I get it.

The experiential stuff has no words because there is no common experience, no Vulcan mind meld. For all we know the color red is perceived differently, but regardless of those perceptions we all agree it is red (unless one is red/green colorblind.)

Because there is no "mystical" occurrence that everyone can agree on, "rational" people believe it doesn't exist. People who do have mystical experiences are not believed. Unless of course, a person has similarly had mystical experiences.

I think you're looking at it / evaluating it the right way.

If you're grappling with the Thomas Nagel quote or what the 'hard problem' is, a concise question that leads to the gist of it is this - if matter is unconscious how is anyone or anything having a subjective experience let alone having it seem like most organic life is having some variant of a subjective 'I' experience?


I've found it can at least be put into words if you're good at that sort of thing but it takes a lot of patience from those listening, mainly because it has to get hit with questions at times before people are sure they're understanding the description correctly.


I think inroads can be made here though in a couple ways:

1) Being familiar with common hallucinations and how they originate in the brain is important. One key thing about many of them is they still function as internal communication of some sort (often symbolically or in terms of the content displayed) but a lot of things like visual and audio flanging or gliding hypnagogic scenes can be sourced pretty well. Knowing those at least helps you weed out what's likely to be relatively normal.

2) The really interesting things can be interesting on their content but what's most interesting about them is when you get a sense that you're engaging a set of geometries or emergent energetic arrangements of types that you never knew existed, ie. when the perception is so solid and detail-rich as to suggest a sort of physics and it keeps a certain self-consistency and its rules stay in tact. A good example of that for me were times where I felt like my tactile senses had extended at least two or three feet beyond my body, or another time where I felt like I had a series of possibly indefinitely long straight lines coming in through my back and scaffolding the atoms in my body. When you get really exquisite detail it's not proof that it isn't a hallucination but occasionally something gets picked up in it that strongly suggests it's veridical rather than hallucinatory.

On that last point - those personal tests of veracity or taking note when you really have to admit that a big patch of synchronicities or a completely different flow of rules has hit your life for a brief period, it can happen and it can equally tough to tell what exactly is happening, ie. whether at least part of it is some emergent behavioral dump of society cascading through certain people, whether there's something extra to it - like the sort of 'electrical' flow that the author of that paper was mentioning.

If you're a functionalist in the Hillary Putnam sense this stuff can get very liquid as well because if you take the idea that consciousness is what it does it's constantly getting exchanged, can form itself into nearly endless canopies of emergence, and you can get things like the idea of a 'China Brain'. A very different side of inquiry, the occult/esoteric world, has talked about 'egregores' as communal forms of consciousness that emerge from groups of many different sizes and tend to take hold of dynamics. Something I usually wouldn't post in a thread like this but a guy I listen to often and have read a lot of his writings, partly because I think Martinism is one of the more serious and likely candidates in the Hermetic diaspora to really have some weight behind it, he's been a practitioner at least since the late 70's and has been practicing laboratory alchemy (spagyric as well as mineral) for about as long and this interview is on his book 'Egregores':

Does the Bible actually say God is omnibenevolent? I hear people comment on this but as far as I am aware the Bible never makes that claim.

As much as I am enjoying Tech's ideas, I think we are off topic meant by the OP.

The Bible does not say God is all benevolent. Also Jesus never says he is God either. The only entity that recognizes Jesus as God are the "devils" that tempt him during the 40 day wilderness trek. I think. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Kushner posits that God is experienced in the communities who experience loss. It's been a long time since I read it.

I don't know how Biblical scholars can keep their faith.

Tech, I will read more...

A few verses that are at least highly suggestive:


Some people have suggested that he was saying here that he was the son of Baal, it's true Baal was known as 'He Who Rides on the Clouds' and that if he was a storm god that sort of put him in a Jovian Zeus-type position much like El, it's just difficult to suss out what this would have meant to a 1st century Sanhedrin or something of the like unless they believed Yahweh was Baal.


A lot of John seems to make rather pantheist/panentheist analogies such as the above or the 'I am the true vine'. This is another thing that makes the bible difficult, ie. it's very philosophically syncretic but in very sort of wrathful hairpin-turn ways where it'll blast certain ideas as evil in one place and take ownership of those ideas in another (the works of Elijah are a great example).

^^^^ Suggestive, but wide open to other meanings. Jesus was skilled at rabbinical arguing.

There is a major change in the gospels of John. He begins to create fables that better illustrate what they want Christianity to be. The whole flavor of John's Gospel is different from the other three.

Agreed, the Neoplatonist bent on it compared to the others is almost jarring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMJUbZrNnA8

LiFE Is Good God
For Those Who
Make 'It' LoVE
Affording Enjoying A
Luxury of No Distance
Space Time Or Matter
Seeing Wind
The Big And
Small Painting
Becoming Brush
And Paint Painting
Portraits Reality Free
A Secret to Happiness
Is to have this much
Gratitude for Loved
Ones even a Tree Now
From: Roots to: Leaves
That Green And Fall
Feeding EartH LoVE
Souls Home And Well;
Just a Few Facebook Statuses i made this morning as Metaphors for my View of Reality Like Waves that make ever
Changing Shores Tide in Tide out once again returning to 'The Eternally Benevolent God' 'nice enough' not to
Create Machines of Human Beings; instead, Flesh and Blood Beings who Bleed and Passion Ecstasy Beyond
Measure as well; True, there is the Measure of Blood; But Ecstasy now for Beyond Rainbow Colors will
Never Be Measured by any other than the one who experiences their Flavor of Heaven now. Smiles,
And then there are those who Extend Paths of Hurricanes with Sharpies; and then there are those
who will see value enough in those lies to Buy those Sharpies at 1500 Percent or So profit
off the Ignorance of Empathy of Love that in deed bonds over darkness of Lies. The
Christian Religion will be reduced to two Laws; Love the Alpha thru Omega
All with no name in Vain with all Your Heart and Soul and Spirit; of course
including Your Neighbor and Enemy the same; considering that Dark
Brings Light in most every metaphor of existence; a Measure of
Gratitude creates the Benevolence of Trust; yes, Faith
Within for All of Reality from Deepest Darkest
Suffering to Light of Ecstasy beyond
Rainbow Colors more; Problem and Solution is
We Choose the Love We Co-Create the 'Good or Bad' Wolf
Within as Metaphor only as Wolves do not wear Cultural Clothes
oF Lies when Wild and Loving Free; Humans are Damaged and Domesticated
no Different than Wolves in Captivity that are Fed Sheep Free without Working Together
to Capture them as they lose the ability to Hold Hands just as humans do now. A Benevolent
God is up to us;
We Can Choose the
God of Expensive Sharpies
That Draw Lies and Love Those
Sharpies with all our Hearts, Spirits,
And Souls incomplete; or LiFE Is Good God For Those Who Make 'It' LoVE.
Life is an Art Project; We Are the Sharpie; true, some folks aren't sharp others
are dull and colorless of Soul; Don't Blame Nature When it is the Choice We make.

No Doubt 'Jesus' was a Pantheist who believed in a mighty Power Placebo Effect of Belief;

At least from What is Written; Don't Blame the Messenger who never had an opportunity to Write a Word;

But Do thank, if You Will, Innumerable 'Ghost Authors' With Famous Pen Names Like Mark, Luke, Matthew,
and John; who do give us different points of view of the Human condition; ranging from Ignorance of Turning
Money Tables Over; to Ignorance of sending Innocent Sheep over Cliffs; to Making Wolves Scape Goats for Human's
Folly of Domestication; Nuclear Bombs Becoming Human Tools; to Loving All Dark thru Light in Gratitude of Bliss LoVE iNCaRNaTE US. But No, if You Will; as Well Do Not Blame God As Nature From Biting Back as We Steam Her Ocean Wrath.

I think omnibenevolence has to be a divine attribute. If God wasn’t all-good, he wouldn’t really be much of a God, and certainly not anything to source objective morality from.

The trouble is picking a standard by which to judge benevolence. The OP is making an irrational assumption that, if you break it down, that God cannot possibly be good. It’s an assumption founded on the premise that God’s own standard for Himself can not possibly be superior to man’s standard for anything.

For instance: “Why would an eternally benevolent God allow the horrifying execution in the electric chair and other unjust punishment of innocents?”

Two important questions, here: 1. Why make the ASSUMPTION that people guilty of murder and other horrific crimes don’t deserve a horrible death? Why make the ASSUMPTION that the electric chair is that horrifying, especially given that it is a quick execution method when carried out correctly? I’m not defending the EC as a method, or capital punishment as a whole, btw. That’s a diff argument. But EC as opposed to what? Hanging? Strangulation? Gas? Stoning? Burning at the stake? Crucifixion? Sure, there are more humane methods. But the methods can be viewed as more or less merciful than what the murderer deserves. What mercy did the murderer show his victims? What justice do survivors and other concerned individuals have when murderers get to live their lives? Or how merciful is life in prison when you have no freedom and you’re left to rot over the course of a few decades? The pain of an electrical burn and a quick, full-body contraction before lights-out is lightweight compared to some other methods or rotting in prison. But the main point we have to keep in focus is that it is irrational to assume that those who are put to death for a crime don’t deserve it. I would say a sociopathic murderer deserves much, MUCH worse than the electric chair. The OP is blinded by an irrational bias and incapable of thinking clearly on this topic.

The 2nd big question: Who are these “innocents” that are punished unjustly? It looks to me that the OP is making yet another irrational assumption that anyone is ever innocent. Humans are born with a capacity for sin, whether we are aware of it or not, and we are responsible for actions that fail to measure up to God’s standard. From the point of view of divine perfection, “innocent” has no meaning that can possibly be applied to human beings.

Perhaps the OP is referring to “why do bad things happen to good people?” The evil introduced into the world through the evil actions of one man means that God’s perfect creation is spoiled. Things like cancer and disease and death are possible because the world we created allows those things. EVEN IF you could possibly have a man born apart from the sin-nature, even HE cannot escape the ruined nature of our world. It’s more likely that a perfectly good, sinless man would stand out among sinners, and quite possibly would receive the blame for all the evils of the world. I don’t believe humanity would allow a perfectly good man to live.

Besides that—how would you even recognize a perfectly good, incorruptible man if you ever met one?

The assumptions made here reflect an inability to think clearly on the matter. I once saw a video of a street preacher talking to a guy who professed to be an atheist. When asked if shown irrefutable evidence, if God Himself came down and confronted the guy, would he believe, he said that, of course, he’d HAVE to believe in God at that point. But it wouldn’t change anything. He wouldn’t bow down and worship. He’d spit in God’s face for all the perceived trouble God has caused. The truth isn’t that atheists lack knowledge of God. It’s that atheistic logic is predominantly wishful-thinking. They really don’t want God to exist.

Excuse me, but how the hell can "we" be responsible for the acts of nature? Nature came before humans. I mean, when children die from cancer, they have not had a single chance to fight it or even try to live a "healthy life" to prevent the cancer.

If we assume God exists and was the creator of the world, the God is also the creator of cancer.

How can that ever justify God being benevolent? I'd like a clearcut answer to that one, thank you very much!

I'm Episcopalian, but I see how you're going with this. Whenever I hear the words "God is good all the time", it makes me feel more and more concerned. I mean, yes, throughout the Bible, God has done good things to people, but sometimes He punishes people over the stupidest reasons, like burning incense, working on Sabbath, mourning for those God punished, etc. Whenever I'm in the Friday class in a church (it's a Baptist church) for disabled people, including mentally disabled, I hear some of them say "God is good all the time". Now I really wouldn't want to say anything to them that make them upset, but I just don't fully appreciate/agree the way they're thinking. I tend to live in an area where most people are anti-NonChristians; they only believe that God, Jesus, and ALL Christians are retroactively "good", while anyone who's not a Christian is retroactively "evil", when in reality, the Christians' agenda is NOWHERE near any different from mysotheists'/antitheists', namely forcing people to change their faiths without question.

Now, is there REALLY the Devil? One that was once called Lucifer? Was the Devil really corruptive? Or does God have either Dissociative Identity Disorder, or apparently just want to get away with abusing His power towards us mortals whenever He wants to just because He has the most power and authority?

Just Saying.

BTW, there are lots and LOTS of other religions in this world than just Christianity, Athiesm, and Satanism, as I KEEP telling other people. There's also Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Taoism, Paganism (namely Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, etc.), Mysticism, Jedi-ism, Spirituality, and many other others I don't know about.

I know I've said I'm Episcopalian, but I'm not that religious, but I'm rather more spiritual.

I also forgot to mention that no one should take everything the Bible says literally, especially in the Book of Genesis, because certain stories are just for people who don't even know how to count to 10; namely those who are not the brightest stars in the night sky, if anyone can catch my drift.

Many “scholars” don’t have any faith at all. Christians who are Bible experts start from the same presupposition as any other Christian: that God exists and Jesus is his Son. The facts of the Bible are never in question.

Many people who follow the “historical Jesus” trend describe Jesus as a radical teacher who actually existed, but the other stuff is more/less legend brought about by his disciples. If that’s all you listen to and your axioms are wrong, nothing about Jesus or the Bible will ever make sense to you. In my view, “historical Jesus” scholarship doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I think even by critical standards skeptics have to rank “historical Jesus” up there with ancient aliens.

You’re making more and more assumptions and not thinking clearly. Who said God created THIS world?

You’re also making the unproven assumption that God doesn’t exist. So how can you “assume God exists” (your words), even for the sake of argument?

You’re also incapable of understanding what divine goodness even is. There’s no “clearcut answer” for ANYTHING if the mind is incapable of understanding anything. “God created cancer” is a non-sequitur. You can’t violate natural order without consequences. A perfect creation cannot remain perfect with the introduction of immorality. All it takes is one misdeed to create disorder out of perfection. To make the ASSUMPTION that “God created cancer” must be the product of a disordered mind.

Another way to look at it is this: A perfectly good God only will do what is good within God’s nature and character. You can’t assume that “cancer is evil” solely on the basis of your personal preferences. 80 years, give or take few, is small potatoes next to all of eternity. Why would you make the assumption that cancer or plague or HIV or...aren’t all part of a progressive plan to restore the world? Why make the assumption that there’s not a better way?

Whichever way you choose to look at it, the only way to understand a clearcut answer is if you yourself actually know everything already (omniscience).

As this topic's dragged on, and this isn't in response or reaction to anything AngelRho is saying but something that just occurred to me, if we have anything it's something like the inverse of Yahweh. Rather than assisting us through our lives and judging us after death it's a form of consciousness that loves us unconditionally but will let just about anything happen to us during our lives. In certain ways that makes 'this' a lot colder and in a lot of ways makes it easy to see this as a sort of hell, and it's tough to make sense of but this is part of why I'm sold on the idea that I really need to read Whitehead - ie. he seemed to have been onto something similar to this back in the 1920's and a lot of people are starting to bring his ideas back out again as panpsychism and neutral and dual-action monism have gotten popular again.