If God exists...

[DeWitz]

If this "god" exists, then it seems he/she/it/? not only allows suffering, but actively participates in it. Exodus, and this is what it says

"This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again"

Note that it is "God" himself who commits these murders, not some psycopathic murderer doing "The will of God". Condemned from his own mouth as a killer of "biblical" proportions.

But then a religion based on the painful death of a man, and with it's identifying symbol being a sadistic death, is hardly going to be averse to pain and suffering. Seems more like a death cult than a religion to me, particulary if suffering is deemed necessary for us. Oooops, there's my "agenda" showing again.

With one proviso: Some Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the majority of Protestants embrace the "empty" cross (the cross without the 'corpus,' the body of Jesus affixed thereunto), which is a symbol of life, a sign that life wins, defeats, overcomes death--in the end. I don't want to be pedantic, but it's an important distinction. Much of Christianity has been criticized for being a cult of suffering and death, but it is more so a celebration of life, even life "eternal" (another subject for endless speculation and debate!).

A question for you, given you cultural background and knowledge: Is it possible that one reason why the Eastern Orthodox Church has been much less oppressive and violent than its Western cousins might be the more mystical, otherworldly nature of Orthodox worship? And/or its lengthy experience itself of suffering under various regimes, most recently Soviet militant atheism? What do you think?

[Mr Walker]

I agree with your statement, well said !! with the exception of evolved. Given the mathematical complexity of our very existence in this universe, I don't see evolution as being proof of removing God. What is the difference of God putting into motion the creation of the earth over billions of years (what a patient guy) and man eventually evolving from goo ? I'm sure he blinked his eyes while evolution took place, why would evolution be a show stopper for no God, I get lost at this point. - Probably off topic though

I am lucky. I KNOW god as a real, physical, powerful being, with a personal and protective interest in me. Thus i do not have to support a constructed belief in god via accepting creation. The evidences for evolution are clear but they do nothing to deny the existence of a very real powerful god who is very interested in humans as individuals and as a race. A belief in creation is necesary for some humans who have to have a belief in god based on faith, but not for all, and it flies in the face of all the evidence. So then you have to construct theories for WHY god would use creation and yet include overwhelming evidences for evolution.

[Mr Walker]

If this "god" exists, then it seems he/she/it/? not only allows suffering, but actively participates in it. Exodus, and this is what it says

"This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again"

Note that it is "God" himself who commits these murders, not some psycopathic murderer doing "The will of God". Condemned from his own mouth as a killer of "biblical" proportions.

But then a religion based on the painful death of a man, and with it's identifying symbol being a sadistic death, is hardly going to be averse to pain and suffering. Seems more like a death cult than a religion to me, particulary if suffering is deemed necessary for us. Oooops, there's my "agenda" showing again.

Dont forget this story was written for, and by, the hebiru. In that context god acted to free his people from slavery, sort of like the north in the american civil war. Was the suffering and death in the civil war morally justified to bring about the end of slavery, or not? Depends who is writing the history I suspect.

And as another poster pointed out, the willing sacrificial death of one man, so that all could have imortal life is hardly a death cult more of a life cult and very noble like horatio on the bridge sacrificng himself so his comrades might live. Because, of course, after death christ rose and was restored to immortal life. (or so the story goes) He was the symbolic avatar for every human to whom christianity offers the same hope All humans shalll die but many (those who believe in me) shall have immortal life after death and resurrection.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Mr Walker

[White Crane Feather]

If you play a video game where there is no struggle you will not play for very long. You see this all the time in rich people. They can have everything in the world yet they still creat turmoil for themselves. Consciousness is built on duality. Nothing good would exist with out the bad. No compassion, no heroism, no accomplishment. If there is a creator god, I think it was very wise to create suffering. It really is the only way to have sentience. Without a recognition of what is good and what is not and experience with both the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil cannot be realized and human sentience cannot exist. Evolution spent billions of years of death and carnage to evolve sentience. Without it we could not have existed.

Duality is a necessary componant of sentience. Even A creator God could not escape this basic logic and is subject to it itself .

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

With one proviso: Some Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the majority of Protestants embrace the "empty" cross (the cross without the 'corpus,' the body of Jesus affixed thereunto), which is a symbol of life, a sign that life wins, defeats, overcomes death--in the end. I don't want to be pedantic, but it's an important distinction. Much of Christianity has been criticized for being a cult of suffering and death, but it is more so a celebration of life, even life "eternal" (another subject for endless speculation and debate!).

A question for you, given you cultural background and knowledge: Is it possible that one reason why the Eastern Orthodox Church has been much less oppressive and violent than its Western cousins might be the more mystical, otherworldly nature of Orthodox worship? And/or its lengthy experience itself of suffering under various regimes, most recently Soviet militant atheism? What do you think?

Deeper mysticism in my opinion. And that there was less need to worry so much about it, to pick at the religion and mess with it. There is no Orthodox Savonarola , Luther, Calvin etc. But of course the Reformation was the prime mover in the religious strife in Western and Central Europe. There was of course some problems with Russian Orthodox when the raskol happened in mid 17th century and the Old Believers were exiled. But this did not cause a war, for the reasons were not theological, but about differences between Russian and Greek liturgy. It is arcane though. The Revolution was a blip in the life of Church. There were some horrors during, and for a time after Revolution, though it was not destroyed. Stalin was not atheist, he was mystic, in opinion of some, but not all. I know this seems absurd and unbelievable, but we have testimony of his close bodyguard that Stalin attended services in secret in Kremlin, and had his confession heard at least four times during war. This information became knowledge after 1991 of course. The power the Church holds over people, the grip on the soul of Russia is not to be underestimated. That a cynical atheist like Putin, has, since 2000 crossed himself for benefit of cameras many times, and he does not need to do this, shows he knows this power. 75 years of Marxism-Leninism have mostly failed in it's religious aims. The State was atheist, many of the people were not. For me it is better to explain with a video. This is the Valaam Monastery. All these matters are more in the soul than written down to be disected. Despite some of my comments on this forum, I would never destroy this. My quarrel is with any rich and corrupt Patriarch in Moscow having any influence on temporal affairs. I still believe in atheist State, in that laws are to be from man, not the supernatural. In another life I could have been at Valaam, but I have this life, not the other...

Edited August 14, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[LostSouls7]

He does not allow it. We humans cause and allow most of it.

If you want to find who to blame. we need to look at ourselves first.

[DeWitz]

Deeper mysticism in my opinion. And that there was less need to worry so much about it, to pick at the religion and mess with it. There is no Orthodox Savonarola , Luther, Calvin etc. But of course the Reformation was the prime mover in the religious strife in Western and Central Europe. There was of course some problems with Russian Orthodox when the raskol happened in mid 17th century and the Old Believers were exiled. But this did not cause a war, for the reasons were not theological, but about differences between Russian and Greek liturgy. It is arcane though. The Revolution was a blip in the life of Church. There were some horrors during, and for a time after Revolution, though it was not destroyed. Stalin was not atheist, he was mystic, in opinion of some, but not all. I know this seems absurd and unbelievable, but we have testimony of his close bodyguard that Stalin attended services in secret in Kremlin, and had his confession heard at least four times during war. This information became knowledge after 1991 of course. The power the Church holds over people, the grip on the soul of Russia is not to be underestimated. That a cynical atheist like Putin, has, since 2000 crossed himself for benefit of cameras many times, and he does not need to do this, shows he knows this power. 75 years of Marxism-Leninism have mostly failed in it's religious aims. The State was atheist, many of the people were not. For me it is better to explain with a video. This is the Valaam Monastery. All these matters are more in the soul than written down to be disected. Despite some of my comments on this forum, I would never destroy this. My quarrel is with any rich and corrupt Patriarch in Moscow having any influence on temporal affairs. I still believe in atheist State, in that laws are to be from man, not the supernatural. In another life I could have been at Valaam, but I have this life, not the other...

Thanks for all the information. I'm woefully under-educated regarding the Orthodox milieu and history. That's news about Stalin; I knew he had been in the seminary as a young teenager, but didn't know about his purported mystical side. As for Putin, I always had a negative "gut" feeling about him, although it's based only on his KGB history and his super-macho persona he cultivates and projects.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Thanks for all the information. I'm woefully under-educated regarding the Orthodox milieu and history. That's news about Stalin; I knew he had been in the seminary as a young teenager, but didn't know about his purported mystical side. As for Putin, I always had a negative "gut" feeling about him, although it's based only on his KGB history and his super-macho persona he cultivates and projects.

A caveat that this affair about Stalin is not universally believed. Though it is true about a plane carrying an ikon of The Lady of Kazan being flown around Moscow at the battle end 1941. Then it was flown around Leningrad and later it was present at Stalingrad. This was not believed for some time, some still do not believe it, but the evidence from Church and State officials has shown that this "myth" was apparently true. I am reasonably certain about Moscow, but not the others. And there were other things happening, some real, some not provable. Churchill was not wrong when he said "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"

Edited August 15, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[DeWitz]

A caveat that this affair about Stalin is not universally believed. Though it is true about a plane carrying an ikon of The Lady of Kazan being flown around Moscow at the battle end 1941. Then it was flown around Leningrad and later it was present at Stalingrad. This was not believed for some time, some still do not believe it, but the evidence from Church and State officials has shown that this "myth" was apparently true. I am reasonably certain about Moscow, but not the others. And there were other things happening, some real, some not provable. Churchill was not wrong when he said "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"

There is likely as much history not recorded, or at least not substantiated, as there are "official" accounts, in any nation or region. But this is fascinating stuff. Thanks for conveying it.