"When Bad Things Happen..."

[Anathema]

I would guess that a good portion of this board's members are familiar with, or have at least hear of Harold S Kushner's book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", but I've never seen a discussion of the conclusions that Rabbi Kushner comes to on this forum.

Rather than trying to disect the entire book, I think there's an easier way to look at and discuss his conclusion. So, let's stipulate the following things:

A. There is some sort of Deity/God.

B. That entity has some level of power/influence in this world.

If you are not willing to work within those stipulations, please move on to the next thread and allow this discussion to continue without your input.


For those who haven't read the book, Rabbi Kushner suggests that we need to look at three concepts when determining why "God" doesn't intervene to help "Good" people when things go bad in their lives:

1. People Can be Good enough to be worthy of being Helped: This suggests that there are people in the world who are worthy of being assisted by "God" in their time of need

2. "God" is Good/Just: This suggests that the God/Deity has a sense of Honor similar to that of Humanity, and believes that the Good People deserve to have Good things happen to them or to be saved from the bad things that happen to them.

3. "God" is Omnipotent. This suggests that the God/Deity has a level of power sufficient to keep the bad things from happening to Good People, or to fix the bad things once they have happened.


Rabbi Kushner's conclusion is that one can believe any TWO of those three concepts and maintain a reasonable logic related to why bad things happen to good people, but cannot believe all three because doing so creates a series of dichotomies...

1. If People are Good and God is Good, then God cannot be Omnipotent because if he was, he would help the Good People.

2. If People are Good and God is Omnipotent then he cannot be Good because if he was he would be helping the Good People when bad things happen.

3. If God is Good and Omnipotent, then People cannot ever be truly Good enough to be worthy of his assistance. .

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.


So, what do you folks thing... Is Kushner right? Do you believe one of the other potentials is closer to the truth? Or is it all just so far beyond our knowledge/understanding that we can't comprehend whatever the truth really is?

 

[Anathema]

I read the book more than a dozen years ago, not long after my father passed away, and I really didn't make any sense to me. I was so pissed off at that time I couldn't understand what he was suggesting.

I re-read the book a couple years ago at the suggestion of a trusted friend and it made a lot more sense. I still disagree with Rabbi Kushner's conclusion...


I believe the truth lays in the idea that People can be good and that God is Omnipotent, but that God isn't necessarily "GOOD". Now understand, this does not mean that I believe God is "BAD/EVIL" either. I simply believe that God is not emotionally motivated, and that the Good and Bad that happen to us are simply part of what God intends our existence to be. In fact I believe that God is watching to see exactly how we handle the Good and Bad in our lives as a matter of testing our Souls in order to determine if we are fit to move on to a better place after the end of this life or not.

 

[norwegen]

I read the book more than a dozen years ago, not long after my father passed away, and I really didn't make any sense to me. I was so pissed off at that time I couldn't understand what he was suggesting.

I re-read the book a couple years ago at the suggestion of a trusted friend and it made a lot more sense. I still disagree with Rabbi Kushner's conclusion...


I believe the truth lays in the idea that People can be good and that God is Omnipotent, but that God isn't necessarily "GOOD". Now understand, this does not mean that I believe God is "BAD/EVIL" either. I simply believe that God is not emotionally motivated, and that the Good and Bad that happen to us are simply part of what God intends our existence to be. In fact I believe that God is watching to see exactly how we handle the Good and Bad in our lives as a matter of testing our Souls in order to determine if we are fit to move on to a better place after the end of this life or not.

I agree that God isn't necessarily good, as in that He intercedes on behalf of good people. He is good, however, as the Scriptures say. So, is He is good, as in He created, and for that reason deserves glory and praise? Perhaps so.

In the Garden of Eden, He fellowshipped with man and was glorified on the earth. He was good. Now in the church, He fellowships with man and is glorified on the earth. He is good. That seems to be the biblical narrative in a nutshell.

Nothing about testing, per se. I don't believe He tests us. He walks with His faithful, and through them is glorified on the earth. That is His goodness. This sense of goodness does not speak to His omnipotence, I don't believe.

 

[ding]

I would guess that a good portion of this board's members are familiar with, or have at least hear of Harold S Kushner's book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", but I've never seen a discussion of the conclusions that Rabbi Kushner comes to on this forum.

Rather than trying to disect the entire book, I think there's an easier way to look at and discuss his conclusion. So, let's stipulate the following things:

A. There is some sort of Deity/God.

B. That entity has some level of power/influence in this world.

If you are not willing to work within those stipulations, please move on to the next thread and allow this discussion to continue without your input.


For those who haven't read the book, Rabbi Kushner suggests that we need to look at three concepts when determining why "God" doesn't intervene to help "Good" people when things go bad in their lives:

1. People Can be Good enough to be worthy of being Helped: This suggests that there are people in the world who are worthy of being assisted by "God" in their time of need

2. "God" is Good/Just: This suggests that the God/Deity has a sense of Honor similar to that of Humanity, and believes that the Good People deserve to have Good things happen to them or to be saved from the bad things that happen to them.

3. "God" is Omnipotent. This suggests that the God/Deity has a level of power sufficient to keep the bad things from happening to Good People, or to fix the bad things once they have happened.


Rabbi Kushner's conclusion is that one can believe any TWO of those three concepts and maintain a reasonable logic related to why bad things happen to good people, but cannot believe all three because doing so creates a series of dichotomies...

1. If People are Good and God is Good, then God cannot be Omnipotent because if he was, he would help the Good People.

2. If People are Good and God is Omnipotent then he cannot be Good because if he was he would be helping the Good People when bad things happen.

3. If God is Good and Omnipotent, then People cannot ever be truly Good enough to be worthy of his assistance. .

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.


So, what do you folks thing... Is Kushner right? Do you believe one of the other potentials is closer to the truth? Or is it all just so far beyond our knowledge/understanding that we can't comprehend whatever the truth really is?

No. I don’t believe he is.

We are being tested. The good Rabbi should know that.

God is not seeking certain outcomes. God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

The objective of football is to get the ball across the goal line. Why not just sneak out the night before and place the ball across the goal line? Because it would have no meaning. The objective is to cross the goal line under certain conditions.

Likewise the objective of life isn’t to live life. It is to live life under certain conditions. Anyone can find peace when life is all flowers and sunshine, but only a few can find peace when they are in the storms of life.

The early Jews believed that suffering held meaning. Modern Jews not so much as evidenced by the good Rabbi’s beliefs.

Just as salt makes sugar taste sweeter, suffering has a way of making life taste sweeter too. Not everyone will see it that way. Most of us see God as sleeping when we are caught in the storms of life. I’m no different in that regard, but if I can find something to be thankful for my attitude will turn and I will eventually get around to asking God what he wanted me to learn. God can be comfort in the storms but he won’t deprive you of the experience. We are all being pruned and tested. Even those that don’t believe he is all good and all powerful.

 

[Karl Rand]

Genesis tells us we are ‘.Made in His image’ If we accept that, what does it tell us about the creator? And no silly ducking sideways by attributing all evil to Satan, himself a creation of you know who.

 

[Meriweather]

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.

As I've said before, the definition of any of the 'omni's' is "all that is POSSIBLE". Omnipotent means possessing all the power it is is possible to have. We humans tie ourselves up in knots trying to explain the paradoxical questions of, "Is God so powerful He can create a rock that not even He can move? Is God so powerful He can love and hate the same thing at the same instant?"

A more accurate conclusion is that humans do not understand omnipotence any more than they understand God. Therefore, we should stop assigning what we do not understand to God, whom we don't understand to begin with.

Second, everyone should be able to understand, "God is love." Period. No buts. This means that God's love has enough power to love us through all the difficulties physical life deals out to us. First, we need to quit picturing God as a Genii that instantly changes the worst to best.

Two very different types of events from my own life come to mind. In one, it took four years for the worst to change to best. In the second, it took a good six months for even a glimpse of light to come back into life, and another six to realize I truly would be all right. Living through these times may seem like forever, but looking back on them, they now seem more like quick (instant?) blips that made today possible.

Ding mentions suffering may make life sweeter. Suffering, while keeping faith in God's love, builds strength in body, mind, and soul, and also builds a stronger faith/knowledge of God's love. This results in an increasing awareness on the distance there is between the amount of God's love and how much more we are capable of loving both God and others.

 

[Meriweather]

Genesis tells us we are ‘.Made in His image’ If we accept that, what does it tell us about the creator? And no silly ducking sideways by attributing all evil to Satan, himself a creation of you know who.

It tells us we, too, can conquer evil by choosing goodness through love.

 

[SweetSue92]

I would guess that a good portion of this board's members are familiar with, or have at least hear of Harold S Kushner's book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", but I've never seen a discussion of the conclusions that Rabbi Kushner comes to on this forum.

Rather than trying to disect the entire book, I think there's an easier way to look at and discuss his conclusion. So, let's stipulate the following things:

A. There is some sort of Deity/God.

B. That entity has some level of power/influence in this world.

If you are not willing to work within those stipulations, please move on to the next thread and allow this discussion to continue without your input.


For those who haven't read the book, Rabbi Kushner suggests that we need to look at three concepts when determining why "God" doesn't intervene to help "Good" people when things go bad in their lives:

1. People Can be Good enough to be worthy of being Helped: This suggests that there are people in the world who are worthy of being assisted by "God" in their time of need

2. "God" is Good/Just: This suggests that the God/Deity has a sense of Honor similar to that of Humanity, and believes that the Good People deserve to have Good things happen to them or to be saved from the bad things that happen to them.

3. "God" is Omnipotent. This suggests that the God/Deity has a level of power sufficient to keep the bad things from happening to Good People, or to fix the bad things once they have happened.


Rabbi Kushner's conclusion is that one can believe any TWO of those three concepts and maintain a reasonable logic related to why bad things happen to good people, but cannot believe all three because doing so creates a series of dichotomies...

1. If People are Good and God is Good, then God cannot be Omnipotent because if he was, he would help the Good People.

2. If People are Good and God is Omnipotent then he cannot be Good because if he was he would be helping the Good People when bad things happen.

3. If God is Good and Omnipotent, then People cannot ever be truly Good enough to be worthy of his assistance. .

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.


So, what do you folks thing... Is Kushner right? Do you believe one of the other potentials is closer to the truth? Or is it all just so far beyond our knowledge/understanding that we can't comprehend whatever the truth really is?

To your last number 3, and since you asked. Rabbi Kushner is very much Jewish in his thinking. His number three is correct--people cannot ever be good or worthy enough. That is a dichotomy that his religion does not, and could not, solve.

That is why, out of the Jewish nation, came Jesus the Christ. To accept Him means you say: I am not good enough. Nor could I ever do anything to even be close enough to be "good enough".....

But because He took the burden, it IS enough.

It is outside the realm of Rabbi Kushner's personal understanding, so it remains the stone of stumbling. Regrettably.

 

[Karl Rand]

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.

As I've said before, the definition of any of the 'omni's' is "all that is POSSIBLE". Omnipotent means possessing all the power it is is possible to have. We humans tie ourselves up in knots trying to explain the paradoxical questions of, "Is God so powerful He can create a rock that not even He can move? Is God so powerful He can love and hate the same thing at the same instant?"

A more accurate conclusion is that humans do not understand omnipotence any more than they understand God. Therefore, we should stop assigning what we do not understand to God, whom we don't understand to begin with.

Second, everyone should be able to understand, "God is love." Period. No buts. This means that God's love has enough power to love us through all the difficulties physical life deals out to us. First, we need to quit picturing God as a Genii that instantly changes the worst to best.

Two very different types of events from my own life come to mind. In one, it took four years for the worst to change to best. In the second, it took a good six months for even a glimpse of light to come back into life, and another six to realize I truly would be all right. Living through these times may seem like forever, but looking back on them, they now seem more like quick (instant?) blips that made today possible.

Ding mentions suffering may make life sweeter. Suffering, while keeping faith in God's love, builds strength in body, mind, and soul, and also builds a stronger faith/knowledge of God's love. This results in an increasing awareness on the distance there is between the amount of God's love and how much more we are capable of loving both God and others.

An impressive sermon but it doesn’t explain the existence of evil or the supposed origins of Satan. In fact so impressive a sermon I find it very difficult to identify the deity you describe with the God portrayed by centuries of Christian theology. It also goes nowhere near the nature of the Crucifixion and how any deity, less than omnipotent or not, could engineer such an event. Mysterious ways? Very mysterious.

My reaction to assertions such as "Suffering, while keeping faith in God's love, builds strength in body, mind, and soul, and also builds a stronger faith/knowledge of God's love “ is no less than one of repulsion. This glib and contradictory sophistry, so often dished up by Christians, strikes me as bordering on the obscene.

 

[ding]

Kushner's conclusion is that God is not Omnipotent. He bases this on his own personal tragedies and those of the families and individuals that he has dealt with over his time as a member of the clergy.

As I've said before, the definition of any of the 'omni's' is "all that is POSSIBLE". Omnipotent means possessing all the power it is is possible to have. We humans tie ourselves up in knots trying to explain the paradoxical questions of, "Is God so powerful He can create a rock that not even He can move? Is God so powerful He can love and hate the same thing at the same instant?"

A more accurate conclusion is that humans do not understand omnipotence any more than they understand God. Therefore, we should stop assigning what we do not understand to God, whom we don't understand to begin with.

Second, everyone should be able to understand, "God is love." Period. No buts. This means that God's love has enough power to love us through all the difficulties physical life deals out to us. First, we need to quit picturing God as a Genii that instantly changes the worst to best.

Two very different types of events from my own life come to mind. In one, it took four years for the worst to change to best. In the second, it took a good six months for even a glimpse of light to come back into life, and another six to realize I truly would be all right. Living through these times may seem like forever, but looking back on them, they now seem more like quick (instant?) blips that made today possible.

Ding mentions suffering may make life sweeter. Suffering, while keeping faith in God's love, builds strength in body, mind, and soul, and also builds a stronger faith/knowledge of God's love. This results in an increasing awareness on the distance there is between the amount of God's love and how much more we are capable of loving both God and others.

An impressive sermon but it doesn’t explain the existence of evil or the supposed origins of Satan. In fact so impressive a sermon I find it very difficult to identify the deity you describe with the God portrayed by centuries of Christian theology. It also goes nowhere near the nature of the Crucifixion and how any deity, less than omnipotent or not, could engineer such an event. Mysterious ways? Very mysterious.

My reaction to assertions such as "Suffering, while keeping faith in God's love, builds strength in body, mind, and soul, and also builds a stronger faith/knowledge of God's love “ is no less than one of repulsion. This glib and contradictory sophistry, so often dished up by Christians, strikes me as bordering on the obscene.

Your beef is with man not God.

 

[Hollie]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

 

[ding]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

 

[Hollie]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

 

[ding]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

Because I posted something that was relevant to this thread?

People can learn a great deal from suffering.

For instance when the Babylonians defeated and enslaved your people, your people did not say their God was greater than theirs. They said what did God want us to learn. You really should study the heritage of your people more.

 

[Hollie]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

Because I posted something that was relevant to this thread?

People can learn a great deal from suffering.

I’m certainly suffering from your need to spam the thread.

 

[ding]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

Because I posted something that was relevant to this thread?

People can learn a great deal from suffering.

I’m certainly suffering from your need to spam the thread.

You mean I shouldn’t be discussing when bad things happen to good people in this thread?

Or just things that oppose you position.

G. Meaning in Suffering.

From the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., during which Israel and Judah tottered before the aggressive power of Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, the prophets found meaning in their predicament by seeing it as God's way of underscoring the demand for righteousness.

God was using Israel's enemies against her. The experience of defeat and exile was teaching the Jews the true worth of freedom.

Another lesson was that those who remain faithful in adversity will be vindicated.

Stated abstractly, the deepest meaning the Jews found in their Exile was the meaning of vicarious suffering: meaning that enters lives that are willing to endure pain that others might be spared it. "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."


07 Judaism

 

[Hollie]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

Because I posted something that was relevant to this thread?

People can learn a great deal from suffering.

I’m certainly suffering from your need to spam the thread.

You mean I shouldn’t be discussing when bad things happen to good people in this thread?

Or just things that oppose you position.

G. Meaning in Suffering.

From the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., during which Israel and Judah tottered before the aggressive power of Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, the prophets found meaning in their predicament by seeing it as God's way of underscoring the demand for righteousness.

God was using Israel's enemies against her. The experience of defeat and exile was teaching the Jews the true worth of freedom.

Another lesson was that those who remain faithful in adversity will be vindicated.

Stated abstractly, the deepest meaning the Jews found in their Exile was the meaning of vicarious suffering: meaning that enters lives that are willing to endure pain that others might be spared it. "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."


07 Judaism

I found no meaning in the suffering I endured from your silly spam.

 

[ding]

The Jews were the first to recognize that there is meaning in suffering. Why is it that a Jew like yourself doesn’t know your own heritage?

I’m afraid you have a need to spam the thread.

Because I posted something that was relevant to this thread?

People can learn a great deal from suffering.

I’m certainly suffering from your need to spam the thread.

You mean I shouldn’t be discussing when bad things happen to good people in this thread?

Or just things that oppose you position.

G. Meaning in Suffering.

From the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., during which Israel and Judah tottered before the aggressive power of Syria, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon, the prophets found meaning in their predicament by seeing it as God's way of underscoring the demand for righteousness.

God was using Israel's enemies against her. The experience of defeat and exile was teaching the Jews the true worth of freedom.

Another lesson was that those who remain faithful in adversity will be vindicated.

Stated abstractly, the deepest meaning the Jews found in their Exile was the meaning of vicarious suffering: meaning that enters lives that are willing to endure pain that others might be spared it. "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."


07 Judaism

I found no meaning in the suffering I endured from your silly spam.

I’ve been told worse. It’s not that bad.

But I believe you did learn something from it.

 

[Karl Rand]

There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

Yes, there is a personality type comfortable with encaspsulated dogma but some are moulded into that type by being subjected to intense indoctrination from an early age. As Lyola (corect me if I’m wrong ) claimed.’Give us the child until he’s seven years old and we’ve got him for life'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I had read "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" almost a dozen years ago and don’t have full recollection of all the details. However, I recall my first impressions.

Theists often recite this need for religion to give them a purpose in life or more alarming, to coerce behavior. I suppose I can understand that perspective. I have no "agenda" other than to find the truth as best I can. In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.

In spite of mankind's awesome technological achievement, we remain subject to the same requirements for existence and survival as all other living organisms. We must metabolize, we must consume, we must be born, live our lives, and eventually die. Our biology is a shared one, and our connection with the rest of the natural world is as intimate and complete as that of any other living thing. We have no special dispensation from natural law over other living things, even as we learn to take advantage of our unique understanding of that law.

From this we can infer that mankind holds no special place in "god's plan," that we are neither the purpose nor the paragon of creation. To the extent that we have quantitative abilities that seem superior to those of other species, there are others in which we are markedly inferior. And there is no clear evidence of qualitative abilities unique to humanity.

Conversely, we can also infer that there is no part of creation that takes precedence over mankind because of particular divine preference. All of creation is an inevitable result of the action of natural law, and no part of creation is special in comparison with any other.

Natural laws operate within parameters we generally understand. The results of that operation can redound to either good or ill for humans and humanity, with no obvious preference one way or the other. All outcomes are mixed. Every truth forces a compromise with human interests. There is no natural moral difference between the spring rain that nourishes crops and the drought that kills them. There is no natural moral difference between the bird that lavishes care on its nestlings, and the parasite that eats its living host from the inside out.

Theists claim to know for certain things that cannot be known for certain. Worse still, the things they claim to know with certainty are derived from partisan religious dogma. That is probably why they can be so prone to error. Claims to certainly cripples any ability to even perceive your own mistakes. It is a great way of managing one’s own insecurity and mishandled perceptions. Too bad it's not also a great way of pursuing truth. Thus, I'm perfectly content with the relative foundations of the respective positions. Theism is one of accepting dogma, and mine is one of rational conclusion from evidence. Theists are certainly free to accept or reject my refusal to believe their absolutist position. The theistic position is, after all, preceded by a compelling lack of fact and evidence to support it. Now, that very well might be difficult for theists, given their affection for absolutes and I'll acknowledge that such difficulty is one shared by most believers. They may feel more comfortable uncritically accepting what they are told to accept and what to reject via a long list of absolute claims derived from sources that (surprise), they are uncritically accepting what they are told to accept. There certainly is a personality type that is most comfortable encapsulated within dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

“In fact, I would love to find a god-paradigm that works.”

Needless to say, no such paradigm exists, given the fact that belief systems, religion, and ‘god’ are all creations of man – imbued with man’s faults, fears, and failings, devoid of fact and truth.

Indeed, when liberated from the tyranny of religious doctrine and dogma, those free from religion are capable of accepting and making peace with ‘when bad things happen,’ unlike theists who continue to struggle to reconcile the harsh realities of life with the mythology of their errant beliefs.