Question about God

[FreyaJade]

Is it true that Muslims, Christians & Jews all worship the same God (the God of Abraham, and is that why they're known as the Abrahamic religions?

From what some people who identify as Christian or Muslim say you would think that the 3 religions worship completely different Gods, for example I've seen a comment in a newspaper site from a supposed Christians who says "Allah is evil but Jesus is good".

I didn't want to comment that Allah & the Christian God / Jesus are the same thing in case I was wrong.

In the Quran, the Abrahamic God is uncomplimentary about Pagans and in parts about Jews and Christians. In the Bible, there are pejorative statements about Pagans. Even Jesus makes the assumption that they are morally inferior. The Jews aren’t painted in a particularly good light in parts of the Bible either. In the OT, God is described as being comfortable with cruelty towards non-Israelites like the Hittites.

In short, in the ancient sacred texts of the Abrahamic faiths, God is depicted as very partisan. There’s no holding back from saying one group is right and another group wrong. And worse than that, belonging to the ‘wrong’ group and holding the ‘wrong’ beliefs is glibly associated with immorality.

Head there are a number of liberal Christians who have moved away from the idea of God intervening in the material world.

Here's Marcus Borg:

For me, prayer – addressing God, paying attention to my relationship with God – is about reminding me of the reality and presence of God in the course of my day and days. It is about centering more deeply in God and about “opening” to God. It helps me to be more centered, more present, more appreciative.

What about prayers in which we ask for something – prayers of petition and intercession? To speak personally (and how else can we speak?), I do not think of God as an interventionist – that God “decides” to answer some prayers. To imagine that God sometimes intervenes leaves all the non-interventions inexplicable.

Now, you could argue - legitimately in my opinion - that in expressing that view Marcus Borg casts himself adrift from scripture, but he himself felt able to hold the view and still identify as Christian.

I think the main question is does the Creator of the Universe care about us rather than is there a Creator of the universe. The Quran's argument for the existence of God is based on observation and reasoning of the natural world. this part isnt related to scripture or texts. but the further argument that this God is concerned with the creation, rather than looking upon it as eg just ants in an ant farm etc, that is based on revelation. and which revelation one believes is more compelling, the OT, the NT or the Quran depends on an individual and also, groups of people. psychology, sociology. christianity tends more to the individual, islam tends more to the communal.

As for suffering, before even talking about mosquitos or strokes we already accept that God created us able to feel thirst, hunger, sickness, cold, wet. our skin is not impermeable, we are not born self sufficient. why don't we get angry about that? because one could say, before we even got to talk of cancer or malaria etc, that what a malevolent God to create us like this. even to catch colds or stomach bugs, they are small to us now but in the old days even such small illnesses could fell people. now they are simple annoyances that can be overcome.

more importantly to me about the nature of God is does our human ingenuity, our human ability to grow varied mass crops, heal our sick, build homes in multivaried terrain, adapt to living in the extreme frost or extreme heat, does God view it as thwarting His plans or is it what God wills for us to rise to? feed the hungry, heal the sick, take care of the refugee, these are themes right from the OT to the Quran that are commendable, able to earn us spiritual rewards and credit with God. not His Anger.

What is our purpose in life? the Quran says that man was established on this earth to be the stewards of God, His caretakers. That is our purpose and what we answer to God for. According to islamic scripture God did not leave us without any guides but we have our guide in the Quran as a manual. this book tells us that we are created for worship, and that when we sin, it not only effects us but it effects the world around us, both in spiritual sicknesses like greed, gluttony, anger, selfishness, etc but also physical sicknesses. the earth and seas ail because of us. 30:41. Life and death is a test and that may be in some phases of our lives we are a test on others and in other phases of life others are a test on us.

The Quran says, it is not God who is taken to account. God is complex. in 1794 the poet William Blake wrote The Tiger and asked 'Did He who make the lamb make thee? perhaps to the lamb the tiger is evil because it preys upon it but for us who can look at the situation holistically is the tiger evil? it is actually just doing what it needs to do to survive and is not intentionally maliciously causing suffering to the lamb. similarly are earthquakes, volcanoes etc evil or examples of 'unjust'(?) suffering? they are natural processes that occur because of the structure of our planet and actually bring about some benefits. I remember reading somewhere volcanoes can cause the soil near them to become more fertile which is why people perhaps against better judgment choose to live near to them. I see it as God created the physical and natural laws by which our planet/universe runs not to cause us suffering and in fact in many instances we benefit from them. it would be unreasonable to expect God to constantly change the laws to shield us from the negative effects of these laws but to only let us experience the good.

look at antibiotic resistance in bacteria. a massive benefit to the bacteria is a disadvantage to us. So should God prioritise what benefits me and you and stop the bacteria from developing resistance? or if we develop super antibiotics that can kill these next generation off of bacteria are we going against God's will? atheists may argue why did God create the bacteria in the first place and enable it to harm us and cause us suffering. however Im sure the lamb or chicken would ask the same question about us - why create these humans that fatten me up only to kill me and eat me. are we causing unjust suffering to the lamb? maybe vegetarians/vegans have the right of it but for many of us we are just taking what we need to ensure we get enough protein and dont die. There is no justice or injustice about it. Its just the facts of life we live and we die because the earth with its finite resources can not sustain us if we live indefinitely. Some would say its better we are not immortal as it enables societal values to evolve and develop.

I think the main question is does the Creator of the Universe care about us rather than is there a Creator of the universe.

Not really. It's a question.
But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that there is a creator - that doesn't answer anything, it just creates more questions - who created him? If he just popped into being by himself or has always been then why can the universe not have just popped into being by itself or have always been? Why is that an acceptable answer to explain the existence of an infinitely complex higher being, but not good enough for the big bang? If you think how complex the universe is - its creator must be so much more complex in order to have been able to create it (the way the human brain is so much more complex than any of its inventions). If the universe is too complex to not have a creator, then so too is the creator - and that goes on forever, who created him? who created them?

The Quran's argument for the existence of God is based on observation and reasoning of the natural world.
But the Qu'ran is over 1000 years old. Science, our observations, our reasoning and our understanding of the universe has moved on considerably since then. God made sense when humans had no knowledge of the universe. He makes a lot less sense now.

Also does anyone really believe that God is 'good'. God or soul or source or existence, whatever term you want to use, yes, is good, it's the human mind that creates the suffering.

Can I just share this with anyone that's interested, I love it, Alan Watts speaking, great video too. Around 4 minutes long.

Sorry, here's the video.

casts himself adrift from scripture, but he himself felt able to hold the view and still identify as Christian.

Yes, the term Christian is taken by anyone who wants it. But if the bible is the source of that belief, how do people choose to pick what they keep and what they cast off. It's all very fascinating. For example what have you kept? Does God intervene?

Sleight that video is fantastic. Wow. I'd love to have that at my funeral.

It is isn't, brings a tear to my eye whenever I listen/watch it.

The basic message in most of the religions gets missed, which is a tragedy.

it's the human mind that creates the suffering.

It really isn't, not only because some suffering is not a result of human action - suggesting a mind over matter approach to a child dying of malaria is a bit offensive - but also because creatures that aren't human are also perfectly capable of suffering.

The world/ the universe/ nature/ existence is neither good nor bad. It isn't sentient in that sense. it just is. Completely neutral. The malaria that kills thousands of people isn't good, but nor is it malevolent. The suffering it causes is not created in the minds of the people who have it - its a very real thing.

At best you could say 'our ability to suffer is what causes us to suffer' but that's very circular and is a direct result of our being sentient. It certainly isn't our minds 'creating' the suffering, even if it is our sentience that allows us to feel it. We can't wish away the bad stuff.

But if some sentient being created the world and chose to create, or even just allow to exist, diseases that cause pain, distress and death; then they are definitely malevolent. And the suffering we endure was created by them not by our minds.

In theory yes, same God. They'd all actually disagree though

Ex Christian.

Pretzels Our mind makes us aware of the suffering from malaria. If we had no mind there would be no suffering.

I agree with you Sleight - see my earlier post. Life forms such as sponges without a central nervous system and brain can sustain damage but don't suffer because of it. Suffering/pain is a protective survival mechanism produced in the brain in response to tissue injury in order to prompt an organism to act/modify its behaviour.

If god is god... what language does he/she/it 'speak'.

Would any deity have a spoken or written language? Why plump for Arabia, Latin or Swahili and expect humans to only consume your edicts via this particular language.

I know the people reasoning (to ensure power of if interpretation is kept with the holy folks and those with power), but how do such religious types rationalise this.

I was pondering this the other day.

If we had no mind there would be no suffering.

well yes, but then we also wouldn't be us. If there were no humans there would be no human suffering - pretty redundant argument. It's just what I said:
our ability to suffer is what causes us to suffer'

But even with that we're not 'creating' it. 'creating' is 'making' our minds don't make the suffering they feel it. Creating is an action, suffering is a reaction. So, for example, Malaria is the cause, the suffering of it is the effect. The human mind neither created the malaria, nor the physical reaction to it, it just felt the pain as an effect.

In order to suffer, one does not need a higher order thinking Human mind, one just needs to be able to feel pain, or hunger or thirst. Animals definitely experience suffering, they don't have human minds. I don't know how much plants suffer as we would understand, but they can be subject to drought or disease and these are things that, even without a mind, they try to find a way around, they try to fix or avoid.

I don't wish to be rude but 'if human's didn't have minds' is never going to be a good starting position in a debate, for anything. If we didn't have minds we wouldn't be human, we wouldn't be aware of the world around us or we flat out wouldn't be here, end of debate.

"But if some sentient being created the world and chose to create, or even just allow to exist, diseases that cause pain, distress and death; then they are definitely malevolent. And the suffering we endure was created by them not by our minds."

if you are coming from a worldview that humans are at the centre of existence and everything on earth must be at our convenience and comfort, then God may indeed seem malevolent. id say far earlier than getting onto diseases and predators the first charge would be 'why create us susceptible to these physical realities in the first place?'. Why not impervious to cold and hunger and disease it would have been nothing for God to do. And along that vein one can go on and on: why predators, why earthquakes, why volcanoes, why floods, why tornadoes, why frost, if this earth was supposed to be for our living and amusement provided for us by Our Father in Heaven, then why all this struggle and yes, suffering. but thats the anthropocentric worldview. if your belief system doesnt put humans at the centre of existence or creation, then you see the world as a place that has the mainstays of what we need to survive but we must struggle ourselves to create those optimum conditions for our needs.

Crowd That's a great example.

Fekko I believe the basic source of the religious books came from humans, including Jesus that had experienced the source/god/soul/existence and have tried to interpret it the best they can but the written word is a poor example of the knowing. These books have been altered by man to suit and to control.

What would God be if God forgot to be God?

Human

What would God be if God forgot to be God?
That's a good question, if god/the source/soul/existence didn't exist, we would cease to exist.

Last two posts reminds me the habit I used to have when young of trying to imagine that there was nothing. Nothing at all. Gave me the shivers.

What would God be if God forgot to be god

An altzheimers patient.

if you are coming from a worldview that humans are at the centre of existence and everything on earth must be at our convenience and comfort,

I'm pretty sure the Abrahamic religions are pushing that line - made in his image and all that. I think you made a very good point about why set the bar of suffering at disease, why not put it at cold or hunger. But the human God of organised religion, wherever you set the bar is a malevolent one for allowing it to happen.

If you want just a generic 'creator' but not a loving, human oriented God, then yes he can just be disinterested as opposed to malevolent. But there is no purpose to him. A Loving God, whether made up or not, offers hope and succour to people, he gives them purpose and inspires them to be better. A creator does nothing but add extra layers of complexity to an already complex universe. If he exists out of nothing, then why can't the universe have just done that? Why add this one extra step, for which there is no evidence, which answers no questions, but manages to create more questions, for which there are no answers.

Now just because there is no purpose to him certainly doesn't mean he isn't real - but why would anybody waste time assuming there was a creature who was so big and vast an infinite that they could create an infinite universe, when there is absolutely zero evidence to support his existence and he doesn't do anything? I might as well claim the universe was created by a giant yellow teapot -it serves the same purpose and there is just as much evidence for it. But I'm not going to waste my time on the possibility of a sentient giant yellow teapot.

Has anyone ever thought about what the heck all the space/nothingness is? Outer space yes, but I'm talking about the space on the earth and in us. The actual amount of matter there is.

"Suffering/pain is a protective survival mechanism produced in the brain in response to tissue injury in order to prompt an organism to act/modify its behaviour."

This is exactly the same as saying 'all suffering is for a purpose' - which is precisely the position that Stephen Fry et al attribute - wrongly, actually - to Christianity and other religions. And, of course, it only really works as an explanation of natural causes of suffering.

"But if some sentient being created the world and chose to create, or even just allow to exist, diseases that cause pain, distress and death; then they are definitely malevolent. And the suffering we endure was created by them not by our minds."

Once more, this argument only works in relation to natural causes of suffering. And, as I pointed out in my previous post, this is a classic anthropocentric position. A God who loves all his creation, all the life-forms that have evolved through natural selection, and to whom they are all good, will love the virus and the mosquito as much as the human being.

But how does Outwith's evolutionary explanation work in relation to suffering caused by humans on other humans (and, indeed, on non-human life forms)? What is the evolutionary advantage of torture or rape, of the myriad forms of cruelty, exploitation and unkindness on which human beings have expended so much ingenuity and energy? Can God really be credited with each act of violence (be it physical or emotional) committed by one human being, of her or his own free will, on another?