Is God behind all the evil in the world?

Belief in a Christian god has caused lot of "evil" in the world. Belief in other gods has caused much harm too.

newlach (@ 1) -

Belief in a Christian god has caused lot of "evil" in the world. Belief in other gods has caused much harm too.

...although I am not aware that "belief in a Christian god" has caused people to execute babies who certain "people who know best" decide are "likely" to grow up to become a problem to society. Apparently you have to be an atheist to advocate that!

But I suppose what you are implying is right. Maybe the lack of belief in God does produce a high degree of well-being; just ask the residents of that luxurious hotel chain that once operated in Russia. I think it was called "Gulag Hotels inc." It was run by an extremely charming gentleman known as "Uncle Joe".

Oh yes, and there was a similar scheme in Cambodia. A delightful fellow - Mr Pot his name was - felt that the residents of the cities needed a break in the countryside. I mean, we "townies" all need a refreshing change once in a while, don't we? He was also someone who wasn't saddled with all that "belief in God" stuff. So obviously he must have done a lot of good!!!

A good sermon. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to 'balance' in this world is that humanity lives in a permanent state of fear- just like every other living creature. Yes, this world is tough- but we make it harder with our anthropological concept of God when we lash out with our frustration & upset using a personal interpretation of God against others.
I agree that if humanity 'sticks together', if not physically - at least spiritually - we have a chance to improve our lot. And by that I mean, move away from pain and suffering by degrees. The speed of our evolution is determined by our capacity to remain calm, thoughtful & gracious. Our greatest asset is our ability to problem solve, to seek to understand how things work and to use that knowledge to prevent unnecessary pain & suffering.

Evil, now that is a good one, I remember having a conversation with a Salvation Army lady in Dublin, many years ago, I suggested in conversation on multi-issues that Evil comes from God, well all hell broke loose. I didn't know whether to run or stay there.

But I think she came around to my way of thinking (can anyone be convinced against their will, I dont think so) when I pointed out that for a force of Good to exist there needs to be an equal and opposite force, and we call that evil.

If a force of Good exists then it is easy to say that it comes from God, after all God creator created everything that exists, but if one wants to believe that Evil comes from the devil, then God is not the only creator, the devil is one also. And if the devil is also a creator, then he/she/it is also a God.

Now here is a proposition, As we know thanks to Genesis 1:26-27 in the 'authorized' King James Version, God said " And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; MALE and FEMALE created he them.

Could the US in God be the GOOD God and the EVIL God, Male being created in the image of the Good God (Father) and female created in the image of the Evil God (Devil)?

After all it was Eve who deceived Adam, EVE(IL)

get your teeth into that one!

I have no particular wish to rush to disagree, except to say that I might have expected to see 'Jesus' make an appearance at some point in the sermon. (Maybe I missed it.)

Other than that I am reminded of William Cowper.

Andy Hamiltons take on Satan and the Problem of Evil on BBC iplayer worth a watch.

paul james

Thanks for that, it was very good. Martin Luther believed the Devil lived in his bowels! In the 26th minute a good comedy sketch starts on the subject of why the Devil was needed. It is interesting that in Islam the Devil is suffering eternal punishment and that his punishment is overseen by an angel.

Probably because of the diet of worms.


Do any of the atheists posting at the moment have an actual *argument*?

Where is there a need for a God if this argument is followed to its extremes? What is the human benefit of such a God?

We suffer the death of family members and friends; we suffer illnesses ourselves; we observe the fact that some 'evil' people might live long and satisfying lives, while some 'good' people might die young from cancer or in accidents.

These things are all fully explicable, and to be expected in a world where there is no God; or at least not one that cares about human notions of fairness.

peterm2
"Do any of the atheists posting at the moment have an actual *argument*?"

Happy families here mate, everyone is in agreement that gods are evil.

Happy families here mate, everyone is in agreement that gods are evil.

Everyone?

Ultimately this sermon argues that God is a bit of a 'so-and-so', but at least He's *our* God.

He'll make it all up to us in 'magic land' after we're dead - honest.

That'll be a no then, Paul.


" 'magic land' "

Ah, newdwr, you could at least use the technical theological term: 'sweet by and by'.


Golly, soundbites are sooooooooo easy.

Peterm2,

Re 'magic land' or 'sweet by and by': that which we call a 'fish' by any name would smell as 'fishy'.

Wise man say, "Without bait, you will not catch fish."


We can do this all night.

I suppose magic land could be adjoined to the sweet by and by.

Can you imagine the queues in eternity? Makes me glad I'm not a postmillennialist.

Of course, genocide is God's version of the fast pass.

Peter
"That'll be a no then, Paul."

Yup, Gerry's "Eve(il)" @5 trumps all us puny atheists could ever come up with.

Andrew

You mean...? Aw shucks...


Paul

Thought so.

Peter and Andrew:

You seem to be 'talking in tongues'.

I don't understand what your responses mean. Forgive me (I guess that's a given?) but I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

The sermon in question says God is a right....'so-and-so'... and that we have no choice but to accept this, because He's the only God we've got; so we're sort of stuck with Him.

All the atheist brethren are asking is what is the difference between this God and no God?

The answer, from the sermon, seems to be that God will make it all up to us *after* we are dead. That's it. The promise of 'better times to come'.

Honestly...

Peter

I'm afraid so...you're just going to have wait your turn.

When you're glorified it'll be easy stuff.

newdwr, perhaps some hope is better than no hope at all? But still, It's a bit like holding a closed hand to a starving, begging dog with the promise of something to eat & making it wait patiently until it starves to death

Ryan,

Some hope is always better than no hope. And reality is always better than a dream.

Just because there is no god doesn't mean there is no hope. Hope is for the living.

You don't need to believe in a a celestial tyrant in order to be good, do you?

20. Andrew wrote:

"When you're glorified it'll be easy stuff".

When the Sugar Plum Fairy covers you in candy in 'the life that is to come' you will be as sweet as a nut, baby.

"You don't need to believe in a celestial tyrant"
I agree, I think Feynman & Einstein's problem solving is Infinitily more beautiful than...

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3)

or

"therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jerobo'am, and will cut off from Jerobo'am him that pisseth against the wall..." (I Kings 14:10)

or

"And it was [so], that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods[haemeroids] in their secret parts." (I Samuel 5:9)

It seems an awful waste of energy to try an extract goodness from those passages. Energy that could be better applied to more practical pursuits. Unfortunately humanity is caught in the same gerbil wheel as every other animal on this planet- can't even go into the street without being sexually sized-up or people posturing with displays of status & dominance. It has to remembered we have the same number of hair follicles as a chimpanzee- even you baldys out there! same amount of hair, just microfine. Nature is what it is, it can't be dressed & turned into something noble- it's gritty- religion seems to be of nature & this planet rather than anything spiritual or celestial. Ultimately we are all a fusion of ideas & belief systems, yet so many of us are intent on going tribal and identifying with just one religion & its anthropomorphic God

newdwr54 (@ 22) -

You don't need to believe in a a celestial tyrant in order to be good, do you?

Of course not. In fact, I suspect that "belief in a celestial tyrant" might be quite detrimental to doing good. That is why I don't believe in such a thing.

On the contrary, I believe in God.

By the way, talking about "tyrants"... atheism seems to be quite good at generating such beings. I referred to two of them in post #2 of this thread, but I could divulge the names of a few more, if you like. Of course, they are not of the "celestial" variety, but let's not be fussy now!

The sermon is very flawed. To suggest/propose that God is behind all the evil in the world demonstrates that the author/preacher really does not know God at all IMO. To stand up and preach such a message to others is in fact evil itself - for it perpetuates man's separation from God and from love. God is love and only love. Evil arises when we live and make choices in separation to that love - as this preacher demonstrates for love would not/could not preach that evil comes from God....for it knows it does not, cannot possibly come from God.

Welcome back Eunice!! :D

Thanks Ryan - not really back though - but saw this one and had to comment - it is nothing short of ridiculous. Another nail in the coffin that thinks that the mind is the way to God for only the loveless intelligence of the mind that knows nothing of God could conjure up such nonsense; the wisdom of the heart knows God is love and only love and it has been told that way for aeons - but we just ignore it, don't get it, don't live it etc etc . :-)

Newdwr #19

I'm having a bit of a problem posting. I'll keep trying.

Newdwr #19 (A few different posts, I'm afraid)

"Peter and Andrew: You seem to be talking in tongues"

OK, I'll try some interpretation.

First of all, in all our exchanges I've been making some assumptions:

You have some understanding of the Christian/Church culture. (Perhaps you were once a Christian)

You have some biblical knowledge.

You wish to debate


Now, perhaps I'm wrong about this, but my comments are written with this in mind...

Can't help wondering how Dr Adam can speak on such a subject without reference to either Genesis 3 - the entrance of sin into the world - or God's answer to sin through the Cross of Jesus Christ.

In the Bible, they are two basic truths difficult to miss!

Don't you just long for the peace that death brings. no more worries, no more heart aches, no more pain. I am looking forward to mine.

Newdwr (part 2)

So, for example, when I wrote in #13 "Ah, newdwr, you could at least use a technical term: 'sweet by and by'" I was assuming that you would know that 'sweet by and by' is not a theological term.

Why do this?

To draw to our attention that your stereotype has a parallel in Christian thinking i.e. in the line from the hymn, "There is a land that is fairer than day". This is a nonsense hymn, which indicates only a lack of biblical thinking among those (Christians) who should know better; this, and to challenge the thinking that biblical 'redemption/recreation" (actual theological terms) is not 'angel wings', 'harps' or magic land'.

If, therefore, your critique of the issue of evil/god/christianity, and this sermon, is predicated on 'magic land theology', we need to debate that first, as it is a premise that I do not (and, frankly, historic biblical Christianity) does not recognise...

Newdwr (part 3)

Another reason this thread has taken the turn it has (and I've tried to flag this up), is that so many of the recent atheist 'rebuttals' of the Christian god are, like the description, 'magic land', also based on poor stereotypes; so, in many ways, I have nothing to argue against, because I do not have faith in that kind of god.

In addition, the sermon does not use the phrase, "bit of a 'so-and-so'", so again, there isn't much to debate with.

The choice I opt for, then, is to try and draw out debate with off-hand comments by way of reply, hoping that we'll get to the point where someone asks something like, "If 'heaven' does not mean 'magic land', what do you think it does mean?" Then, we might be able to broaden the conversation to the topic of this sermon.

So, perhaps we need to clear up whether you are using the terms, 'magic land', or 'Sugar Plum Fairy' as pejorative terms, or as terms which reflect what you think Christians actually believe.

Pastor Philip # 31


Yes, fair enough, I was thinking something similar (see #5), but we still have to explain, "the entrance of sin into the world".

Gerry! such honesty...honestly lol Though I do think many of us spend our lives searching for release in some form.. moksha perhaps. Although I've had to face my own mortality in different ways, I think I'd settle for une petite mort for now- It's a little less drastic :p

Newdwr

When the Sugar Plum Fairy covers you in candy in 'the life that is to come' you will be as sweet as a nut, baby.

Which one's the Sugar Plum Fairy again?

Some hope is always better than no hope. And reality is always better than a dream.

And the reality is, sometimes there really is no hope. I don't mind admitting to being something of a pessimist. But, as a Christian that is only up to a point.

Also, is reality *always* better than a dream? What is better? Better for what, for whom? What is real, what is not?

You don't need to believe in a a celestial tyrant in order to be good, do you?

No, you don't need to believe in a celestial tyrant to be good, who said you did?

Eunice

Are you a 'course in miracles' aficionado?

the wisdom of the heart knows God is love and only love and it has been told that way for aeons - but we just ignore it, don't get it, don't live it etc etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khc4UaLdMKk

"If you come across a sermon or address..."

I have no idea what anyone else thinks of sermons or the like, but I came across this:

https://www.ntwrightpage.com/sermons/Easter09.htm

I'm not sure if God is behind all evil. Somebody nasty is, that's for sure. And it shouldn't be allowed, even if they are gay.

However, I am sure - God allowing (in conjunction with Aer Lingus) - that I will be in Belfast on Monday evening. Anyone fancy a beer?

(I had to bring 'God' and 'evil', into it to get passed the Mods. I put 'gay' in so that the Mods wouldn't spot anything unusual.)

Hello again friends.

What this guy appears to be saying is, "Don't ask questions. You don't geddit. "God" is bigger than you, so don't even try to understand what he's about."

It's a reiteration of the injunction not to eat of the tree of knowledge. To wear your sorrow gladly, as a sign of your sharing in Christ's suffering.

My problem with that is that by eating of the tree of knowledge - strictly forbidden - humanity has done very well, much better on all fronts than when that rule held sway. We are less violent and more prosperous than at any time in our history. BECAUSE we pursued knowledge.

As Hume said, "Epicurus's old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?"

This man's answer seems to be, "Don't ask."

Poor show.

37. Andrew wrote:

"Which one's the Sugar Plum Fairy again?"

The one in the sky that gives us eternal life and wipes away our tears.

Andrew wrote:

"I don't mind admitting to being something of a pessimist. But, as a Christian that is only up to a point."

Up to what point?

Andrew wrote:

"...you don't need to believe in a celestial tyrant to be good, who said you did?"

Numerous Christian commentators.

34 (and other posts). peterm2:

Apologies for late response. Your interpretation of Christianity is not the one many mainstream Christians would be familiar with. It certainly isn't one that I was exposed to in a fairly orthodox Methodist upbringing. At least not by the church authorities.

So if I paint Christianity with a broad brush, then this is meant to reflect what I see as the commonly held beliefs and traditions popularly associated with that cult today.

I would regard myself as a Christian. This is an entirely cultural expression, not one of 'faith'.

I don't believe that a first century apocalyptic Jewish preacher rose from the dead. I don't believe that this individual is likely to appear on the horizon, or on the clouds, any day soon (or ever). I believe it is pointless to invoke this phantom in 'prayer' (whatever that's supposed to be).

What I *do* believe is that the social constructs that have arisen around the formation of 'Christianity' have been, in general, a positive thing for mankind. The earlier Eastern concept of 'do as you would be done by' was adopted by Christianity and it has proved to be a beneficial one in a world of increasing close social interaction.

So I'm not 'anti-Christian'; I'm 'anti superstition'. I think the belief that we in an actual physical sense outlive our own deaths is both nonsensical and pernicious.

Newdwr

'The one in the sky that gives us eternal life and wipes away our tears.'

Ah, that's the Sugar Plum Fairy, who knew?

'Up to what point?'

I'll put it another way. Given atheistic materialism and 'reality', I don't think hope has much justification.

'Numerous Christian commentators.'

Which Christian commentators?

AboutFarce

First Eunice, now you.

Are you sure you're not one person, part fluff, part serrated? Bag Puss and Shredder?

Andrew - no, I'm not a course in miracles fan. I have read it in the past and whilst there are parts in it I could agree, with as a whole text I do not agree with it and it is contra to what I understand today.

Neither am I aboutfarce - i do not agree with him/her either. THe problem is that people are seeing GOd as something separate to themselves rather than intimately interwoven with us .....BUT it is up to us to choose God, to choose love and live from there - that is what will make the difference. As long as we continue with our heartless, loveless, mind driven emotional ways of being - evil shall have free reign. Its not God that it is to be blamed for or is responsible for evil - but ourselves - we give it power when we don't live /choose love/GOd. Simple - but not easy!! :-))

Words, words, words, in predictable gobbledegook terminology. Couldn't Dr adams have condensed his ideas, if he had any new and interesting ones, into one paragraph?

The problem lies in the pre-supposition of a GOD. Having created a GOD, followers have to find ways of justifying their belief no matter how contrived that justification may be. Such contrived justification is called theology.

31.At 19:34 7th Nov 2011, pastorphilip wrote:
Can't help wondering how Dr Adam can speak on such a subject without reference to either Genesis 3 - the entrance of sin into the world - or God's answer to sin through the Cross of Jesus Christ.

In the Bible, they are two basic truths difficult to miss!"
***
Perhaps because they are too obvious & simple.Once one gets to a position of lecturing at university the simple & obvious can become lost.

And I think Eunice has some good thoughts, too.

31, Perhaps because he wasn't talking about 'sin'. Although it's clear you are

Here's a whole page on the definitions of evil:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

Ryan

I would guess that Dr Adam and I would disagree on a number of foundational Christian teachings. But for him to fail to even address the Fall and The Cross seems to me to be a glaring omission, especially for someone who is suposed to be a communicator of Christian truth.

Bible-believing Christians know that God's justice and mercy met at the Cross, where Christ - the sinless Son of God - paid for sin and made it possible for repentant sinners to find forgiveness and new life.

(Oops....does that sound like an evangelistic appeal??! Won't apologise though, especially the day after Billy Graham turned 93!)

Interesting link mscracker, quite alot to read through. I think where there's an 'outside of religion' perspective on this, it's concerned with the "Physical directly due to nature" & the "Metaphysical parts of the natural world" aspects. As a species, we must champion our ability to develop the tools & drive to problem solve, rather than as Dr Adam intimates, just be passive & supplicant. There are many natural occurring phenomena in our environment outside of our control but, as we evolve, by using the tools of modern medicine & modern technology we alleviate elements of suffering our forebears had to endure

RJB,

Sorry I missed your post, and you. I would have been up for a beer.

As for the topic,

I don't really have an opinion as I don't believe in god all the debates and arguments as to whether he is behind all the evil in the world are a bit superfluous. My own opinion is that any evil in the world is either man made (some by followers of a god and some not) or a result of things beyond our control - but I guess that's not really the debate here.

newdwr #42

”Apologies for late response.”

Not an issue.

”Your interpretation of Christianity is not the one many mainstream Christians would be familiar with.”

That’s a pity; I can point to any number of historic church creeds, confessions or mainstream biblical commentators who are more than familiar with it and from whom I have learned. It's pretty standard.

”then this is meant to reflect what I see as the commonly held beliefs and traditions popularly associated with that cult today.”

Cult? Is that another pejorative term? You never did clarify with regard to ‘Sugar Plum Fairies’ and ‘magic lands’.

”I would regard myself as a Christian. This is an entirely cultural expression, not one of 'faith'.”

I had assumed as much. Although presumably you object to the more 'cultic' expressions of this: carol singing, perhaps? As I have said on many occasions on this blog, if that were my position I’d find a word other than ‘Christian’; especially given the criticisms ‘cultural Christians’ make of the Bible, of God, of Jesus the Christ, it seems an odd identity to choose. If it were me, I’d run with the term, Disneyanity, or something, paint an egg and roast a couple of chestnuts come the dark half of the year. Alternatively you could buy Mr Dawkins book of family devotions - "The Magic of Reality"

”I believe it is pointless to invoke this phantom in 'prayer”

If he were dead, it would be, right enough; come to think of it he wouldn’t even be a phantom. The objection is raised in the bible.

”The earlier Eastern concept of 'do as you would be done by' was adopted by Christianity...”

That would be Eastern spiritualism, then, not biblical Christianity.

”So I'm not 'anti-Christian'; I'm 'anti superstition'.”

Me to; except that I suspect that what you mean by ‘anti-superstition’, is that God cannot, under any understanding, exist; and that makes the difference between us.

Eunice

Welcome back!

I have a question.

This ‘GOd’ business. Is the capitalisation significant? One never can tell.


Dave

”My own opinion is that any evil in the world is either man made (some by followers of a god and some not) or a result of things beyond our control - but I guess that's not really the debate here.”

Maybe, maybe not. What would you offer as a solution to and/or explanation of man’s inhumanity to man? (Given the assumption of mankind's inherent goodness)


BTW

We can say what we like about Dr Adam, and his failure to mention Jesus (which is a bit of a gap alright), but so far he's the only one trying to deal with the words he quoted from the bible.

Here's one of his standout comments, "But so far as I can tell, it's precisely when we're confronted with the cruelest heartbreak that we need Isaiah's God. "


Made it through the sermon, with this thought:

I believe I just met my quota. I’ll be happy to never hear/read another sermon again.

Peterm2,

I don't think I subscribe to philosophy of man's inherent goodness. People are a complex mix of the traits they inherit, how they are brought up, the environment in which they live, the opportunities they have and how they relate to the constraints placed upon them by society.

There is also a complexity in the question - do you mean individual person to person inhumanity or do you mean dehumanising at a group or tribal level (whether that tribe is religious, political, racial, social etc.) to such an extent that one group has so devalued the existence of another so as not to see acts against them as inhuman or to care what happens to them ?

It is probably another thread on it's own.

Dave

"I don't think I subscribe to philosophy of man's inherent goodness."

Which establishes some common ground between us, and places you at odds with at least some humanists.

"People are a complex mix of the traits they inherit, how they are brought up, the environment in which they live, the opportunities they have and how they relate to the constraints placed upon them by society."

Yes, and each of the features you mention are 'human', each influencing the other, so I'm wondering if you see any way of 'escape'.

"There is also a complexity in the question"

Indeed. And not just in terms of individual/group behaviour, but also in understanding how humans can be both wonderfully noble and terribly cruel. No doubt it is possible to describe differences in the causes of cruel behaviour when one distinguishes between individuals and groups, but either way, human beings can behave cruelly.

Christians take some flack at times for introducing God into the equation, with an objection often being that merely raising 'God' doesn't answer any of our questions, so I was wondering how you'd approach the question.

Peterm2

Thank you Peter.
The capital G was deliberate and the O was a typo.....but yes capitalisation can be used to distinguish eg Love and love (former divine, latter not divine) Thy Father and thy father (former God and latter human) etc

Eunice

You're welcome.

OK, I know you've received a bit of flack at times for the 'warm fuzzy' approach to life, and I've been tempted to fire some of it your way myself, but a few more questions:

This God you speak of.

Tell me something about this it/him/her/spirt/being/force/presence.

What does he (I'll use that word for ease of typing), do, if anything. Is, for example, he a creator? Does he oversee anything? Is he involved in this world? How does he communicate with us/you? How does he relate to nature? What is his essence?

Not that I'm up for conversion or anything, but I am interested to know what you think/feel/know/experience

(and you'll note I'm being very generous and flexible with my terms! :-)

Peterm2 - just because I say God is love and we are love in essence does not equate to a 'warm fuzzy' approach to life at all if it is fully understood. Indeed it calls upon one to live with a high degree of responsibility and accountability for all the choices we make and without blaming this or that or God for the events of one's life. Indeed it is for many too challenging to live with that degree of responsibility and they prefer to blame others for the circumstances of their lives. So the 'warm and fuzzy' approach is a misnomer.

I have no intention to convert so you're safe there! :-)
It does not matter what words I use to describe God, my experiences etc because it is something that can really only be known by each person for themselves and which is deeply felt - not thought. It is a journey each person has to make for themselves and is in essence from the head to the inner heart. Words cannot really convey that but you will be familiar with Jesus saying by their fruits ye shall know them or words to that effect and I would agree with that. That said I will attempt to put some words to your questions but they will prob fall short of answering them because words cannot really do that! However, you can feel the love of God in some people, you can see the emmanence of light in some people - all people have both equally so but some just live it more than others and hence can bring the presence of God, of love, of light, of stillness to all they meet and all that they do.

Everything is energy - including us and God. The energy of God is fire (christian mystics like Bonaventure, John of the Cross and others have described God as fire as that is what he is energetcially), is love (also light). There is another energy that is not love and both of these can be felt, with practice. The Kingdom of God is inside you as Jesus said......equally the kingdom of love is inside you......this love is accessed in the inner heart not in the head!! We can reconnect to that essence to that stillness by a gentle breath technique and it also helps to bring gentleness to all that we do to help build that in the body. It is a stillness, that lives, that impulses one. So communication is by impulse, by feeling in the inner heart. It is not by words or 'conversations with God' to quote a well known book! It takes practice to build love within ourselves, that we may embody more of the light and love of God....to be impulsed from the stillness/love and not driven by the mind, by thought, by emotion - the latter are of the energy which is not love. Hence the importance of self-loving choices in food, drink, sleep, everything really, staying centred not getting emotional and on and on.

We are all sons of God like Jesus - thus we can all do as he did if we make the choices to deal with our stuff, to connect to the inner heart and to live self-loving lives and also love all others equally so.(takes work!) To serve with love in all that we do - in that way we make God manifest - through our eyes, our hands, our words, our actions. In that way we can co-create with God in all that we do/say etc. Yes God is creator, yes God is involved with life, with people but we have to choose God and when we do then we have the power of God at our disposal just as Jesus did. If we choose otherwise, (as we all do eg emotions etc ) then we are choosing that which is not love, which keeps us separate from knowing that love and which contributes to the perpetuation of evil. (Evill being that which separates us or promotes separation from the love that we already are).

When God is known the magic of God is played out in nature - everything resonates with meaning, with purpose. Everything is known to be so deeply interconnected that nothing is seen in isolation, there are no accidents, no mistakes, no incidents etc - everything is a consequence of choice.

Perhaps that's enough to start with - although so much more could be said!
:-))

Dont think it posted so will break up into parts
Part one

Peterm2 - just because I say God is love and we are love in essence does not equate to a 'warm fuzzy' approach to life at all if it is fully understood. Indeed it calls upon one to live with a high degree of responsibility and accountability for all the choices we make and without blaming this or that or God for the events of one's life. Indeed it is for many too challenging to live with that degree of responsibility and they prefer to blame others for the circumstances of their lives. So the 'warm and fuzzy' approach is a misnomer.

I have no intention to convert so you're safe there! :-)
It does not matter what words I use to describe God, my experiences etc because it is something that can really only be known by each person for themselves and which is deeply felt - not thought. It is a journey each person has to make for themselves and is in essence from the head to the inner heart. Words cannot really convey that but you will be familiar with Jesus saying by their fruits ye shall know them or words to that effect and I would agree with that. That said I will attempt to put some words to your questions but they will prob fall short of answering them because words cannot really do that! However, you can feel the love of God in some people, you can see the emmanence of light in some people - all people have both equally so but some just live it more than others and hence can bring the presence of God, of love, of light, of stillness to all they meet and all that they do.

part 2
Everything is energy - including us and God. The energy of God is fire (christian mystics like Bonaventure, John of the Cross and others have described God as fire as that is what he is energetcially), is love (also light). There is another energy that is not love and both of these can be felt, with practice. The Kingdom of God is inside you as Jesus said......equally the kingdom of love is inside you......this love is accessed in the inner heart not in the head!! We can reconnect to that essence to that stillness by a gentle breath technique and it also helps to bring gentleness to all that we do to help build that in the body. It is a stillness, that lives, that impulses one. So communication is by impulse, by feeling in the inner heart. It is not by words or 'conversations with God' to quote a well known book! It takes practice to build love within ourselves, that we may embody more of the light and love of God....to be impulsed from the stillness/love and not driven by the mind, by thought, by emotion - the latter are of the energy which is not love. Hence the importance of self-loving choices in food, drink, sleep, everything really, staying centred not getting emotional and on and on.

part 3

We are all sons of God like Jesus - thus we can all do as he did if we make the choices to deal with our stuff, to connect to the inner heart and to live self-loving lives and also love all others equally so.(takes work!) To serve with love in all that we do - in that way we make God manifest - through our eyes, our hands, our words, our actions. In that way we can co-create with God in all that we do/say etc. Yes God is creator, yes God is involved with life, with people but we have to choose God and when we do then we have the power of God at our disposal just as Jesus did. If we choose otherwise, (as we all do eg emotions etc ) then we are choosing that which is not love, which keeps us separate from knowing that love and which contributes to the perpetuation of evil. (Evill being that which separates us or promotes separation from the love that we already are).

When God is known the magic of God is played out in nature - everything resonates with meaning, with purpose. Everything is known to be so deeply interconnected that nothing is seen in isolation, there are no accidents, no mistakes, no incidents etc - everything is a consequence of choice.

Perhaps that's enough to start with - although so much more could be said!
:-))

Why do some of my submissions not get published? Are they censored? They are never offensive, but may perhaps offend the entrenched sensitivities of some readers/contributors/censors. Do they challenge the conventional understanding of religion (particularly Christianity), atheism, agnosticism, life, existence etc? Who would ever know, if they aren't published?

Eunice

Thanks for the response.

I was in the process of writing a fuller reply, bit by bit, and may do so; but as I read, I increasingly began to think that what you are speaking of is a deep sense of peace, contentment, and purpose which one might find in their lives, and which you understand to be the presence of God.

Is this a reasonable comment?

Eunice

So the 'warm and fuzzy' approach is a misnomer.

I'm not so sure, it seems close enough to the mark to me.

I must confess to some degree of bafflement. How is it you know this stuff?

One of the basic premises of Christian theology is the creator/creature distinction. In the Reformed tradition this idea developed into what is known, rather ponderously, as archetypal and ectypal theology. Where archetypal is God in himself and ectypal is God as He has revealed himself, the ectype being a 'copy' of the archetype. You get something of this in the Shorter Catechism Q.4 What is God? God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. The first four are conventionally called 'the incommunicable attributes of God' and the others, 'the communicable attributes of God'. We can know, at least to some extent, what it means to be wise, powerful and so on but we can't really comprehend spirit, infinite etc. Which brings up what's known as divine accommodation. This all to say that God cannot be known or experienced as He is in Himself but as He has revealed Himself to us through natural and special revelation.

Where, it seems, we differ is that you believe you can know God (and we are by no means using these words in the same sense) immediately whereas I think that is impossible.

Where also we seem to differ is that there is an undoubted intellectual aspect to knowing God which you not only deny, but deride.

We, says you, really should be striving for that warm, fuzzy feeling, for such is God. We do not know God, we feel God. So, how do we tell one warm, fuzzy feeling from another? Well, you say, we can tell by the fruit. But the fruit is consistent with the feeling, it does nothing to validate one experience over the other. And the only way you could say one is of God and the other is not, is to provide a point of comparison that is intellectual and normative, not subjective and irrational.

But from where do you get this knowledge? Experience? Reason? Revelation?

And suppose there is a source, does that not undercut the mystic schtick somewhat?

Andrew

I agree with you, you know that. But I also think we should cut Eunice some slack :-)

Here's the reason:

"He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart."

I just don't sing this kind of stuff anymore - it's just the evangelical version of the warm-fuzzy.

Peter

I'm not sure I cut the evangelical version much slack either ;)

It's been a while since I've 'had' to sing that particular hymn. Quite a few others though I don't sing anymore. I've noticed they're mostly 18th Century, usually American and sometimes Methodist. I wonder what that means?

I think I might be jaded.

Peterm2

Sorry for the repeat posts - thought it hadn't posted!

Whilst your comment is reasonable, it is not entirely correct :-). I do not take peace, contentment or purpose in my life and call it God. The presence of God is a reality that can be felt and be known by all as it is our divine heritage to do so for that is where we are from and where we are returning to, and what we are made of .....the very fabric and ground of our being. Living from there can bring the fruits you describe ...... Not the other way round.

Andrew

"I wonder what that means?"

It probably means that you can cope with Isaiah 45:1-7.

Eunice

It puts you in a bit of a bind, though; you don't seem to be able to know where you are living from until you recognise the 'fruits'.

I wouldn't worry about the repeat posts; that's what we're all doing here, we just use different words to repeat ourselves! :-)

is God behind all the evil?

A gifted Born again Christian Speaker makes his living testing weapons systems so that one man can go out in his plane and kill others, with no regrets

If God approves, then God is behind it.

Peterm2
There is nothing binding about living from / with love joy harmony and stillness - for that is what we are, it's just a coming home to self and brings true freedom if lived consistently - that takes work and practice. A work in progress! :-))

I think Eunice definitely has some insight in her comments.And I'm saying this as an old, hidebound, conservative Catholic.Sometimes in our attempts at orthodoxy we lose sight of the obvious which is that God is love. And we should let His light shine in our everyday actions.

68.At 22:57 9th Nov 2011, Andrew wrote:
Peter

I'm not sure I cut the evangelical version much slack either ;)

It's been a while since I've 'had' to sing that particular hymn. Quite a few others though I don't sing anymore. I've noticed they're mostly 18th Century, usually American and sometimes Methodist. I wonder what that means?

I think I might be jaded."
**
I think you might be blessed. You should hear the typical music we have to sing at Mass.
18th century hymns tend to have beautiful melody & deep, challenging lyrics. Our hymnal, thankfully, still has some of these hymns but the overwhelming selection are puffy, syrupy, faux-folk music stuff composed in the 1970's, '80's, etc by people with a tin ear for poetry.I'd almost rather have heavy metal.
Actually, check out "you tube" for an artist : Tim Eriiksen-"Star in the East"(traditional Christmas carol). He sings 18th century shapenote hymns with a twist. He previously performed heavy metal rock & has all the heavy tattoos,etc. associated with that genre. He teaches now at a university up north & is a really nice person.And great musician.

Ummm. IMO, Love is an extreme, and implies much emotion. Unless you all mean Peace.

If God is going to be a Word, I’d rather have it be something like Acceptance.
I think Peace is a better word.

Andrew
I posted a long reply to you but has not turned up!
So a brief version here
Of course there is a source and we are all expressions of it and can express it, with it, from it, be at one with it as per the example of Jesus.
The intellect as we know it cannot know God for the mind is loveless unless it is fed/impulsed from the heart first...that leads to true wisdom. God is love and can only be known by love. It is part of the evil of the world that people are taught that they cannot know God - when it is their divine heritage to know just that .....for God is the very fabric and essence of our being.....as Socrates said 'know thyself'.....then God is known.

Eunice

Apart form anything else, I simply do not buy into this mind/heart dichotomy business, at all; rather, I think holistically. And earlier, when I said bind, I wasn't meaning "living from / with love joy harmony and stillness"; I meant something of the order of, you can't know what you know until you know it.

I'm also interested in this, "as Socrates said 'know thyself''.....then God is known."; in what way is this different to what I said in #65?

Out of curiosity, what is the mind useful for?


mscracker #74 75

There is a world of difference in experiencing heart/feelings (warm fuzzies) and trusting in heart/feelings as the only way of knowing anything about oneself, the world, or God. In the same way, I suspect that what you and I mean by the words, "And we should let His light shine in our everyday actions." and what Eunice means by the words, are very different.

As for the hymns, yes, there are a lot of very good hymns in the Protestant traditions (and some really duff ones too), the ones Andrew and I are speaking of have more to do with faith in oneself, as opposed to faith in, God revealed in Jesus.


BTW

Decree of God, anyone? (Somebody has to mention it sooner or later!)

mscracker

I think you might be blessed. You should hear the typical music we have to sing at Mass. 18th century hymns tend to have beautiful melody & deep, challenging lyrics.

I'm ashamed to say, I meant 19th Century.

Hymnody in the 19th Century took an inward turn. As Peter says, hymns become focused on the experience of faith. This isn't really surprising either when you consider the theological developments during that period. And to quite a large extent today's evangelicalism has been influenced by that kind of piety.

I'm not saying all hymns from the 19th Century are rubbish, there are many good ones.

Eunice

I think I'm just going to have to throw my hands up, your latest post is more or less unintelligible. Maybe that's the idea?

Peter

Decree of God, anyone? (Somebody has to mention it sooner or later!)

Are we playing QI?

But yes, I would say there is evil in the world because God decreed it. How many questions does this raise, though?

I didn't see any mention of the word sin in Dr Adams sermon details. Perhaps he needs to do a study in harmartiology...it may help him understand a little better.

Marieinaustin
God is not something we just decide is this or that according to the flavour of the month - God is love because that is what God is .....and there is no emotion whatsoever in divine love. Human love is emotional but that is not true love.

Peterm2 - I have holistic approach too! Fact is the mind and heart are different and the source of love and the kingdom of God are in the inner heart , not in the mind. That is where we go wrong ....trying to use our minds to know God.
The mind can be fantastic or woeful depending on the source feeding it.....whether it is aligned with love or not love.
One way of putting it is to say re know thyself is to know without a doubt that you are a son of God just like Jesus was and to know with true humility the implications of that

Oops last one sent before finished .....anyway much more to it of course but that is just one way of looking at it.

Andrew

How can love decree that which is evil???????????????

Impossible.

And you say my post is unintelligible!!!!! :-) the above is a good example of what happens when the mind talks about God without knowing God and is not aligned with the love of God ......for then it is as clear as night and day that God did not decree evil, could not decree evil - impossible - for love only loves.

Eunice,

You may be writing ‘love of God’ and ‘inner heart,’ but my gut is telling me something else about your posts.

Eunice

How do you recognise love when you feel it? And how do you define it? Particular examples would be good.

That will be part of the way to answering you own question to Andrew.


Andrew

”How many questions does this raise, though?”

Many; and not one any of us (in 80 comments) have really attempted to grapple with. Like I said already, we can say what we like about the omissions of Dr Adam, but at least he had a go.

His stand out comment remains, "But so far as I can tell, it's precisely when we're confronted with the cruelest heartbreak that we need Isaiah's God."

Not a regular blogger, just here to put in my thoughts.

I became a christian (Believed and received CHIRIST as my personal saviour) at the age of 21, having been born into a hindu family. Being from India and currently living in the UK, here are my thoughts:

1. The world needs a hope and no philosophy, morality or preaching can do justice to fulfill this need. Only a Loving GOD who can take over the suffering of mankind upon HIMSELF ( which he does it the person of CHRIST) is able to.

2. One cannot take random instances from the Old testament to substantiate that the christian GOD is a Cruel GOD. Yes as much as GOD loves you and me, HE hates us going down the paths of Immorality (sin) and he doesnt hesitate to correct us (maybe by punishing us) as any one of us parents would to our children.

3. If you claim is that there is No GOD- one cannot substantiate the moral argument; if you say man is moral, you are obliged to accept that this morality was given by a Moral Law Giver (GOD). There is not other explanation for the morality that you and I express without having been given it (chimpanzees dont have it although they might have the same amount of hair follicles, but this proves nothing)

4. Much of the misery around the world is manmade ( hunger, wars, poverty, child abuse etc) and yes the church does have to answer for some of these problems, but on the whole its humankinds greed. This situation begs for a Saviour which is there in ther person of CHRIST, who sets such a high standard for morality and generosity ( lay your life down for your neighbour), which no other religion can match. Lets not blame GOD for peoples, even christians for the wrong...afterall he cared for us in a way we could never have by dying on the CROSS.


John 20:20 'The thief (evil in and of the world) comes to steal, kill and destroy; I (CHRIST) have come so that you may have life, and have it to the full'

GOD BLESS

Hello Raj,

I am a Christian also and would echo what you have written.

God Bless you

Hello Raj,

Nothing like the zeal of a convert...

1. Pure conjecture. And subjective. You can't speak for "the world", only yourself.

2. Are you with the Phelps family here in holding that perhaps American soldiers get killed because homosexuality is tolerated in the US? Or that the Japanese earthquake was God's wrath for some other sin? How can you speak for God?

3. Apart from being insulting, this doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. For one thing, many social animals exhibit what could be called ethical behavious. Humans are rather more complex, but there is a perfectly good (and more robust) evolutionary explanation for morality.

You also get stuck with the Euthyphro Dilemma: "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

If a thing is good because God wills it, then torture would be good if God willed that (herein lies the danger intrinsic in religions which necessitate people speaking for God - just as you've done here).

If a thing is good because it's good in itself, then good exists independently of God.

Read about the Dillema here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

4. This always confuses me: "Lets not blame GOD for peoples, even christians for the wrong...afterall he cared for us in a way we could never have by dying on the CROSS."

One minute he's the living Christ, but he died, then he's alive again, but he died on the cross, and I had something to do with it even though I wasn't there and I have to be sorry for it, and if you take a look around, leaving natural disasters aside, in many, many, many cases of misery in the world, religion plays some causative role, whether it be by dividing people artificially, or by retarding progress, or by inciting violence directly. All these things are on the charge sheet against organised religions.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced humans are inherently daft.
I don't think we truly grow up! I'm sure I'd get a withering look from my 11yr old sister saying that :p At the extreme, religion perhaps gives a certain license to this 'daftness'- maybe unleashing it in destructive ways under the guise of equating 'sensible' with 'righteous'- a scenario that can lead to evil, as it often puts others in the firing line- as prey or cannon fodder.

Thank you Eunice & Peterm2 for your exchange. It's been thought provoking. Peter's 65 is an honest acceptance we don't all have to take the same road to reach the right destination. The fact is we can't all be the same. The doctrinal conformity of religion is nothing more than social control. Taken to the extreme, it asks everybody to do the same thing at the same time. You only have to look at economies that practice behaviour lacking diversity- where too many rely on the same sector; such as Property, to show how fragile economies arranged in such a way are to market forces. The same principles apply to society in a social context. Strength is through diversity. Much of the evil in the world is cause by people forcing others to conform- a uniformity that isn't reflected in the natural world.

As Eunice says 'everything is energy' and this energetic diversity exists in nature at the atomic level as atoms & light are clearly connected. The atoms of different elements give off light signatures in their quantum jumps- the colour of light depending how big or small a jump the electron makes- signifying the element, its shape and how it fits together with other elements. Al-Khalili rephrases Wolfgang Pauli's 'Exclusion Principle' as 'God's best kept secret' as it takes Bohr's quantum jumps idea one step further as it explains the "vast variety of creation". Every atom is made of similar components yet appear in such "a variety of colours, textures, & chemical properties". One electron can make the difference between something that is solid or liquid , toxic or inert. He expands Bohr's idea of the multi-storey atom by stipulating each 'floor' can only accomodate a certain number of electrons. Adding a single electron can radically change the shape of the atom- in turn, affecting how the atom behaves & how it fits together with other atoms. However Wolgang Pauli didn't explain how his principle worked- just that it did. As Eunice says God/love is beyond words, Heisenberg realised that nature at this level couldn't be described by Bohr's/Pauli's multi-storey building or Schroedinger's wave/orbit. That it couldn't be compromised by analogy or even traditional mathematics

Everything is known to be so deeply interconnected that nothing is seen in isolation, there are no accidents, no mistakes, no incidents etc - everything is a consequence of choice.

On a macro level however, we have to relinquish a great deal of control- we cannot control the actions of others. This inevitably leads us into a situation where nature is ruled by chance & probablilty- Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
That nature, at its lowest denominator can't be visualised, it can only be understood through complex matrix mechanics. That in fact behaviour can only be accurately predicted at an atomic level using Heisenberg & Born's matrix mathematics theory- based on manipulation of a complex array of numbers. That in fact. the reason nature is 'unknowable' at this level- defying visualisation or the ability to be understood intuitively is that it is a matrix of numbers.

@85.Raj:
You hang in there & God bless you for your faithfulness.

God is behind all the evil in the world?...


Crucify him.

@ Ryan, 88.

My God! You've changed your tune. As someone who had found you very irritating indeed before, I'm glad you appear to have had a decent look at where we're at with questions of what we know versus what we might assert. Can I recommend to you Paul Davies' God and the New Physics? It's a sober look (albeit from the 1980s) of a quite eminent physicist into where physics (Heisenberg etc) leaves the question of God. Davies is Catholic.

To me, your position still looks a bit god-of-the-gaps. But I take my hat off to you that you appear to have moved.

Where there's light, there's hope.

I haven't changed, perhaps when we're not throttling each other or making assumptions we might be calm enough to see what we have in common :)

Marieinaustin
I don't doubt that your gut is telling you something else!

Peterm2
My words /explanations will not satisfy you. For words cannot convey what it is the inner heart feels and knows and will fall short. It is something that is deeply felt and known ......and you know it because you are it. The nearest word to describe it is stillness, and it is associated with qualities of joy and harmony - all 4 (love, joy harmony and stillness) are qualities of the soul.
It can of course be expressed by all if chosen and such a person would be light hearted, playful, joyful, non-imposing, needless and called to serve in and with that love. It is not soppy romantic love , it is not emotional and it needs nothing.....hence why it's call is to serve.

I appreciate this will prob not satisfy you re answer but words cannot ......you can feel it in another and thus know it is in you also by way of reflection....although some are so lost hurt and disconnected from themselves that they do not consciously
recognise it.

Raj
We can only save ourselves - no one, not even Jesus can do that for us for he does not make our choices on a day to day basis - we do and we live with the consequences.

Eunice

"My words /explanations will not satisfy you."

Actually, I think they would, at least in a forum like this, where words are all we have.

This is why I asked for some examples; I wasn't setting you a test, but I am interested in finding out how you describe this state of being you speak of and the consequences of it, and understanding it in the context of my Christianity.

In Christianity the closest words are 'righteousness', 'mercy', and 'grace', and they are words of action, words which speak of God's activity in the world and, consequentially, our interactions with one another. I don't have to feel love in order to show love. Indeed I am called to be faithful in acting with kindness towards others even when I don't feel like it, and when they don’t deserve it. I could, for example (I don't always you understand!), act with generosity or kindness towards those I do not like, and those who do not like me. More pointedly, I could act with compassion towards those who, in the eyes of others, are overlooked, ignored or forgotten, those who live on the fringes of our wealthy society; I could act with kindness, seeking the good of others, including those who might be called enemies. Moreover, I need people to act like this towards me too.

But whatever I do, these words (among others) capture and describe for us what Christianity says God is doing, and has done, particularly in the person of Jesus. And this is one of the crucial points in Christianity - you said to Raj that we must save ourselves, yes, you have said that before; but Christianity says something else: it says that God, by his acts of righteousness (tsedeq), and his acts of mercy, fully and finally in the life of Jesus has acted in this world to remake it. In Christianity God is a person (not an energy), a person who takes responsibility for all that is wrong with this world, experiences that evil himself (the evil human beings experience and the human beings do), and overcomes it. “I the Lord do all these things”.

Yes, perhaps some people think they can save themselves; but for those who, in your words, "are so lost hurt and disconnected from themselves that they do not consciously recognise it", those who cannot, in otherwords, save themselves, and who need someone to act in love and kindness to free them from the consequences of their choices, Christians use the word Emmanuel - God with us; and, as I identify with the latter group, I'm putting my faith in him.


Sorry Ryan, not really the same thing at all :-)

Eunice

How can love decree that which is evil??????????????? Impossible.

Since you seem to reject theology that's not an objection you can consistently raise.

You don't *know* what love is, you don't *know* what evil is, you don't *know* what God is. Love, evil, God are simply felt. And, as I have already suggested, there is no way to distinguish between the feelings of one and the feelings of another, which are good and which are evil, without recourse to objective, normative, propositional theology. Your feelings are never my feelings, you get the 'warm fuzzies' bathing kittens whereas I get the 'warm fuzzies' drowning them. Different strokes for different folks.

Peter

That's a very helpful comment. I cut mine after reading it, no sense in me saying the same thing badly.

His stand out comment remains, "But so far as I can tell, it's precisely when we're confronted with the cruelest heartbreak that we need Isaiah's God."

On that note here's a helpful post by Steve Hays over at Triablogue; https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/08/for-better-for-worse.html

Peter- "not really the same at all". Maybe I'm misreading this, but you do take responsibility- you don't delegate responsibility for prejudice & bigotry by arguing it's biblically sanctioned. It's an approach I value in you , mscracker & Dave- although I'm aware Dave's not a Christian! But you all take a pragmatic approach- that people can believe what they want with the caveat of not imposing it on others- I'm sure you're equally aware there's a certain harmony in that :)

95,

And, as I have already suggested, there is no way to distinguish between the feelings of one and the feelings of another, which are good and which are evil, without recourse to objective, normative, propositional theology

I'm sorry, but that's complete bulls***. You'd have to be completely lost, confused & screwed up to find yourself inhabiting a permanent reality like that

Ryan

I'm sorry, but that's complete bulls***. You'd have to be completely lost, confused & screwed up to find yourself inhabiting a permanent reality like that

I'm sorry, but that's an assertion absent an argument.

First, remember the context of my discussion with Eunice is the knowledge of God. I addressed that, briefly, in #66. And in #95 I'm developing a point made in #66. So we're not dealing here with something like the moral argument for God.

Second, if you have a way of distinguishing between the 'godness' of feelings without reference to an objective, normative, propositional theology I'd be interested to see it.

All of which makes me wonder, 'would Ryan know bulls*** if he was standing in it?'

Yeah, my message is stood right next to yours ;)
Babies understand fairness by 15 months
Lee Worden's paper expands on Lovelock's work & how certain issues raised here relate to the natural world

Peterm2
There are differences and similarities. We are all potential instruments of the divine to manifest the love grace beauty truth of God on earth and if we are connected with God it is natural to serve with and pour out that love and compassion to all others. I agree God is with us - all of the time constantly and without fail BUT for us to make that love manifest on earth we have to choose it in all words deeds etc We can use the quality of gentleness as a bridge to the love so being gentle in all that we do etc

Everything we do is done with an energy ..so even if you do something that appears to be kind or loving but you are actually feeling resentment or dislike for the person then that is the quality of the energy that the act is done in and is actually not loving and that does have consequences . So it's not about outer appearances but the quality of energy it is actually done in and whether it is in fact coming from love. So I agree re acts of kindness / love etc but it has to be done in that energy- not with resentment or wishing one was somewhere else.

For me, we are all sons of God and as such we are all responsible ( not just Jesus) for making manifest the love of God and equally for all that is evil by not choosing Love/ God - our lives are a consequence of our choices and for me Jesus has set an example I can learn from but he does not make my choices - I do, I am responsible for them and the consequences, for my life and how I react or respond to situations
in life......by deeply knowing who I am and dealing with all the stuff that keeps me in separation to that truth.
And yes for those who are lost disconnected etc it is by them coming into contact with someone who meets them with love, who truly sees them and is kind etc that they may arise out of their disconnection - again the responsibility is on each of us here and now .....not Jesus.