Why would a transcendent God do anything?

by gubberningbody 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  BurnTheShips

  At the end we're faced with a God whose action of creation seems to be one that can never be understood in any <humanly> logical sense, nor would I image that it would be possible to speak of it. I think it would just have to be experienced. I often thought that reconnecting with the transcendent in this way would be the only way possible to "experience an answer". Once that answer was experienced, I would imagine that the answers to all other questions would seem superfluous.

  That resonates with me.

  BTS
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Why would god do anything? And what is the object? We know the Christian answer is "love". JW exegesis is agape love, which they incorrectly limit the definition to "a love of what is right".

  This is a very pragmatic question. Dogma doesn't answer it. If love is the answer, and "love" has different biblical definitions, then we have problems, not the least of which is, why describe to humans something they can't understand, and call it love? (there is a JW conundrum)

  I for one think that if one truly believes in god, then they need to act as god does. Unfortunately, the fringe right act as they believe god is. So do many liberals. I hope that if god exists, then he is a liberal god. That would be rather transcendent......
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Please lets leave politics off this thread.......it will get derailed.

  BTS
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  No, I am not using politics, I am using peoples point of view. If god is us, then where we are and how we view god matters greatly.

  I used a generalization in a general sense. (something some of us could learn to use to greater effect. )
• 

  gubberningbody

  Jeff, I've heard people use the term "human logic" before, and I understand the sentiments behind the usage, but the definition is what makes for logic. A thing exists or it doesn't. (unless you speak of a collective, in which case, some things can be coming into or out of existence).

  I know of no realm where 1+1 is something other than 2. I need not scour the universe for examples where this might be false because this statement is not an empirical statement, it is a statement of definition.

  Having said this, I have to assert that my usage of logic is that defined by a finite series. A transcendent God is said not to be contingent, therefore fully explaining "why" with regard to any of his actions implies that he is contingent, and since this cannot be true, we have to say also that the reasons have to be transcendent as well which would then become a series of endless "becauses" which means we could approach an answer to the question, and yet never get the answer.

  I know this, and yet I don't want to accept this because it makes no sense, and it cannot make sense because it would have to be experienced in a transcendent moment...

  How can a contingent being experience noncontingency so as to be able to have the volume necessary to contain the answer?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Thanks for sharing gubberning....

  I can tell you where I am at. For all the logic and facts that you describe, there is also much in the human experience that neither "religion" (of the organized variety) or science (which concludes that as of now, no god is observable in the evidence) can quantify.

  I find myself acting as an existentialist. I think that to be in tune with ones "spirituality" is actually a very healthy thing. To me, there comes a point where you can try to define that aspect of us with either science or religion (such as bible based religions) can turn your head around several times.

  Quality of life is what I am primarily about, which is why to a point, I do not begrudge anyone their personal religious beliefs, in spite of some clear logical fallicies in some of the dogma.

  One thing I think of is, we all want to be happy. (unless you like grunge rock... lol) Their is such a thing as ethics, right and wrong, etc. Evil exists, so does good.

  We have seemingly programmed into us a desire for happiness, and an ability to facilitate it for ourselves and others. Love seems to grow both ourselves and others the best. WHY that is the case is not a quantifiable question at the moment. But I think it goes without saying that to pursue such a "spiritual" point of view is healthiest.

  Is that a finite or infinite question? Can god fit in it? Rather then spend too much time waiting for an unapparant answer that may never come, may I humbly suggest to be godlike, live, love, and leave your legacy...
• 

  jwfacts

  This is an interesting post as it combines two topics that I have not grouped together previously.

  • Why did God create humanity after an eternity alone WITH
  • Why is there wickedness

  It highlights the impossibility to provide a logical explanation to why God allows wickedness. If the reason God created was out of love, then there is no logic to God creating the possibility for wickedness. Under Watchtower doctrine, animal suffering and death existed and will exist even in perfection after the 1000 years - hardly the work of a God that had no need to create, but rather did so as an expression of love.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Wickedness and suffering is a problem, a question that is not answered at all logically within the frameworks of any religion I have ever seen. For a creator to allow for the possibility of wickedness that would in turn cause great suffering makes a monster out of "god".

  There are other alternative ideas out there that seem to address this much better then the bible club of religions imo. Having said that, we all have to be pragmatic and deal with it, even if we can't explain why within our own "spiritual" framework.
• 

  choosing life

  Poppers, you speak of believing that you are separate from God as the thing that keeps you trapped in the world of form and creates the notion of suffering and lack.

  How then do you escape the world of form or even just the notion of suffering and lack? I understand that all things are connected, but moments of transcendence are few and far between. Mostly, we live in the physical world and deal with the consequences. I assume the death of the physical form would be the solution.

  The idea that life would be less interesting without the bad stuff is not something I am so sure about. Does God really require such challenges to be amused? Would life in general not be more pleasant without suffering? Could challenges not come from the endless possibilities of the intricacies of life itself?

  Satanus, I agree that the term awareness is a good substitution for the term God. Sometimes, I think if you want to play in the physical world, you have to pay the price. It is not all "good". Using good and bad "gods" does little to answer the question of why suffering exists.
• 

  sir82

  BTS, what is the source of the dissertation in your first post?

  God is most anxious that we know these divine secrets; He tells them plainly though they be beyond our mind's power to understand.

  OK, so let me get this straight:

  1) God creates humans without the power to understand him

  2) But he wants us to understand him anyway

  3) And so he tells us things that he knows we won't understand...because he purposely created us that way

  Do I have that right?