Playing God 2

My problem is not with God per se, rather it is with peoples' ideas of Him which cater to their seemingly arbitrary whims. For instance, many believe humanity should use its knowledge and expertise to intervene in debilitating DNA coding errors and other less threatening genetic imperfections. As such, much work is being done to control and hopefully even eliminate diseases, birth defects and numerous other undesirable attributes once and for all. What a great coup for humanity! But for God?

If one supposes DNA errors to be “oversights of God”, then our attempts to repair them seem to assume He does not want these “imperfections". So perhaps many things are NOT the way God would like them to be*? But does this not seem to imply He lacks omnipotence? Otherwise, why would DNA coding errors and other genetic imperfections ever happen?

On the other hand, to deny His being anything less than omnipotent would imply He does have complete authority. In which case, perhaps things are just as they are because He wants them just as they are? To lend further credence to this notion, why is it often said by the faithful that our gravest adversities “glorify God”? In this sense, might our intervention be taking due glory away from Him? How dare us!

Even if it is supposed God wants us to intervene in nature's “imperfections”, this is problematic. For how do we distinguish between that which is sufficiently imperfect enough to elicit our intervention and that which is not. In other words, what is 1)an imperfect enough circumstance such that God would bless our attempt to change it as opposed to 2)an insufficiently imperfect enough circumstance that we must therefore humbly accept?

For instance, I'm pretty much going bald but am probably one of the few that accept and, dare I say, like it. But what about others who are tormented by this same fate? Is this imperfection worthy enough to challenge God's authority or something we must humbly accept? I guess it depends on whom you ask.

What about those who suffer from gluten intolerance? It seems to overshadow hair loss as an imperfection but does this necessarily qualify it as being worthy enough an imperfection to usurp God's authority? Once again, it seems to depend on whom you ask. Maybe God doesn't care what we do? Or maybe He doesn't care so long as we have “good” justification for our intervention?

But how would we determine what “good” justification is? That seems pretty straightforward. Simply appeal to our own arbitrary whims. What then becomes of God's authority on the matter?



*Using the assumption that God does not necessarily want things just as they are, why is it so often assumed or at least implied that every fetus is God's desire and will**? If we assume God does NOT want babies being born with cystic fibrosis even though nature allows for it, why should we anymore assume God DOES want every fetus to be born just because nature allows for it? In other words, if one uses the argument that a fetus is God's will just because “it happened”, it should be no less argued that cystic fibrosis is God's will just because “it happened”. In this case, perhaps we should abandon our attempts to "repair" these types of tragic ailments? Might cystic fibrosis and other crippling maladies be God's unalterable will? My deepest condolences to those faced with these life-shortening diseases. In any case, this perfectly illustrates the apparent arbitrariness of how people “see” God in the way they approach difficult issues like this. But alas, I do not “see” God in circumstances such as these because the "answers" simply cater to the arbitrary whims of people. These issues are very troubling to me. The difficulties of these kinds of decisions seem much more manageable when one eliminates God. In this way, one can take refuge in his or her conscience in resolving issues like this as opposed to seeking God's seemingly nebulous counsel on such matters which ultimately degenerates into nothing but arbitrary whims! This of course implies my own suspicion that GOD, and perhaps more specifically the mere idea of God, is simply a proxy for each individual's EGO. In this way, seeking God is simply appealing to your own conscience. However, the danger in believing it is "God" as opposed to one's conscience that is behind these types of difficult decisions is it systematically inflates one's sense of right(eous)ness. For instance, if my conscience "tells" me something, I will be very forthright that it is merely MY CONSCIENCE/OPINION and as such I will AMIABLY disagree with dissenters! How will one spoon-fed the "truth" straight from the Horse's mouth likely respond? With absolute conviction, "I am hereby incontrovertibly right because my decision comes not from MY woeful, fallible conscience BUT FROM GOD HIMSELF! How then can one reasonably question this? 


**IF it is assumed ALL fetuses are God's "Supreme Plan", then it would seem perfectly fair, perhaps even OBLIGATORY, to implicate God in rapes whereby impregnation occurs. IF, on the other hand, this notion is rejected, why is it so many out there seem to be such staunch advocates of protecting EVERY fetus like they were all of them part of God's "Supreme Plan"?


I know this subject will likely incite anger and hostility in some but this is not my purpose. My purpose is to demonstrate how these kinds of issues are so seldom dealt with anything resembling that of rational thought because they all too often become hijacked by EMOTION. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but I only wish to expose the utterly absurd implications many of these "emotionally-based" conclusions lead to. Henceforth, I only ask that we think more before making audacious moral claims that oftentimes sow nothing but anger and resentment in those that do not see eye to eye with us.

To Lie Or Not To Lie.....That Is The Question

Socrates exposes very well the conflicting moral issues with telling the truth or not. For the sake of argument, we will claim that lying is evil and therefore immoral.

At this point, suppose a sane man lends a gun to a friend. Over time, the sane man becomes mad, ever impulsive and violent. He then inquires his friend as to the whereabouts of his gun. The friend has a choice to make. He can produce the gun and give it back knowing full well the likelihood something terrible will happen as a result. Or he can simply lie to him and say the gun is lost.

We might say by giving the gun back, he promotes morality by not lying. On the other hand, if he lies, he promotes peace insofar as the mad man not being able to do anything violent with the gun. Which choice is “right”?

If he gives the gun back knowing full well the likelihood that harm will be done, how will he sleep at night? On the other hand, if he lies to avoid complicity in a future crime, then it is not imperative to tell the truth. In other words, immorality seems to be called for. But then how must we distinguish “right” lying from “wrong” lying?

How can it be anything but arbitrary based on a single perspective which can not in itself point to anything absolutely true? At this point, we have established that it is not wrong to lie. Or we could just as well say it is not imperative to promote peace if one feels compelled to avoid lying at any cost. What do you think? What might God think?

Must God always be honest or are there reasonable exceptions for Him? If one declares God to be free from these kinds of dilemmas more commonly associated with us mere mortals, how then does one discern God would want him to respond?


The following example clearly illustrates where right and wrong/good and bad seem to conflict with honesty:

Assume the following unattractive girl will not suspect being patronized in the least. Telling this ugly girl she is pretty when she clearly is not might seem to be wrong (because it is a lie) but good, as it will likely make her feel good or at least better about herself. Conversely, not telling this ugly girl she is pretty might seem to be right (because at least it is not a lie) but bad, as she will not be made to feel good or at least better about herself. Does not either response seem fraught with dilemma?

Why should she be made to feel good or better about her appearance if she really is ugly? On the other hand, perhaps we should inspire her with confidence by lying or at least exaggerating about her appearance? In any case, there is something unsettling about this to me.

Maybe we should not lie to her by telling her she is pretty when she is not but rather find a compliment that is true, perhaps her superlative loyalty, something or other? Which response is right? Once again, what would God do or at least what would God want you to do in this situation?

There does not seem to be an absolutely “right” answer! For that matter, neither does there appear to be an absolutely “wrong” answer! Might any answer be right? Or perhaps wrong? To lie or not to lie.....that is the question.

Those Greedy Bastards!

Where does greed begin? In other words, at what discrete point does one's action(s) become that of greed? What with all the financial and other problems people are experiencing with this latest recession (2009), it seems almost obligatory for emotions to quickly and confidently allot blame and create all manner of scapegoats in the process. Those greedy bastards they are!

This sentiment is or at least seems well justified but which select few are the “true” greedy bastards at which to channel our anger? Isn't it obvious? Or is it? It seems apparent which are overly greedy and which are not greedy in the least, but what about the vast majority of us that seem neither greedy nor not greedy in the least? Where do we fit?

Can each of us be labeled either greedy or not greedy in the least? Not likely because if there is a discrete point at which one becomes greedy, this seems unfair because the person only slightly higher on this “scale of greed” will be looked at in a totally different light. Meaning, a person who is only slightly more inclined to greed than another is greedy whereas the other is not greedy in the least.

Of course it is obvious what the typical response will be to reconcile this dilemma. We all possess varying levels of greediness! In other words, there exists a great chasm between greediness and lack thereof spanning a continuous spectrum. With this admission though, it seems we have simply recreated the original dilemma.

Once again, where does greed begin? If assessing greediness must be done on a continuous spectrum, what level of greediness is the threshold by which one is to be labeled greedy? On the other hand, we could ask the opposite. By how much must one lessen his greed so as not to be labeled greedy?

Here is the crux of the issue. Only arbitrarily can we ever determine this. Suffice it to say, there will not be consensus on this. So who is “right”? All of us? Or perhaps none of us? What do you think? What might God think?

See link below for further discussion:

The Machine That Is Greed
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/machine-that-is-greed.html

A New Take On Heaven

Heaven: "doing over" life with one caveat.....we are all of us reincarnated as our current day antagonists. At which point we finally understand and see validity in many of our conflicting actions and viewpoints. As a result, the dilemmas, contradictions, insanities and absurdities inherent in any and all views are completely apparent to everybody! In which case the only winning move for peace's sake is not to fight and argue and be in conflict at all. What is this purported "peace" of heaven we all seem to seek?

Perhaps this: imagine a bully and his "victim". Whereas the "victim" would be reincarnated as a bully knowing what it is like to be bullied, he will thus abstain from bullying. The bully, on the other hand, will be reincarnated as a "victim". With bullies no more, however, how will he ever understand what agony his bullying caused in the previous life? Well, he need not know what it's like being a "victim" of a bully to dissuade him from being one because he is one no longer! In this sense, the "victim" reincarnated as a bully understands (because he experienced this as a "victim" in his previous life) the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As a result, he abstains from bullying. On the other hand, the bully reincarnated as a "victim" does not understand (this is why he was a bully in his previous life) the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But he doesn't need to understand because he is a bully no more! See how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

"Victims" of evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, reincarnated as evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, will obviously understand (because of their previous experience with being victimized) the vileness of this lifestyle and thus abstain from it in heaven. On the other hand, the former evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, reincarnated as mere "victims" of evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, need not understand what it is like to be victimized because they are vicious and cruel no more! See how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

Capitalists and socialists switch roles and are finally able to see that their previous view(s) actually did have blemishes just like their antagonists' view(s), this realization curiously absent in their former lives. As a result, there is much more understanding and less argument and conflict because the dilemmas, contradictions, insanities and absurdities inherent in any and all views are completely apparent to everybody! Once again, see how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

I hereby offer a nice corollary to the concept of grace and mercy. Whereas most of us instinctively live by the creed "vengeance is sweet", those reincarnated as evil oppressors and other heartless and cruel sorts avoid exacting vengeance because they know what it's like being one of its "victims". THIS IS GRACE AND MERCY, without which heaven will simply repeat this life's iniquities! There will only ever be peace where there is grace and mercy. However, far be it from me to even say peace should be humanity's ultimate endeavor.....my own suspicion is that we NEED argument and conflict and perhaps above all vengeance. It's that pesky ego!

Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?

It is commonly claimed by the faithful that when things go horribly awry, God is not punishing us necessarily. But using this type of reasoning in a consistent manner, we are then forced to conclude that neither is God necessarily blessing us when things go well!

In the same way, if it is true that bad outcomes do not necessarily discount the existence of a good God then neither must good outcomes necessarily suggest the existence of a good God!

Furthermore, viewing God as blessing good behavior and punishing bad behavior is viewing God as nothing more than a "vending machine"!

One can avoid this “vending machine” dilemma if he does not believe God blesses good behavior and/or punishes bad behavior. But at this point, what would be the use of worshiping God if not for the assurance that we will ultimately reap what we sow?

Who Of Us Makes Mistakes?

It is often said the man who makes no mistakes is the man who does nothing. Why would this be so?

Because just about everything any of us does is fraught with "mistakes" from somebody's point of view. The reason this is the case is that reality is or certainly seems to be predicated on a duality of opposites. Meaning something considered good is only good if there is something bad to oppose it, and vice versa.

But depending on the point of view espoused, good and bad can simultaneously be bad and good. Hence, no matter what action is taken, it is a "mistake" to somebody. Abstaining from action seems to produce no mistakes because of this "point of view" dilemma, hence the implication that the inactive man makes no mistakes.

But of course from a certain point of view it can be said that inaction itself is an action meaning even inactive types are prone to making "mistakes" as well.

So what is the best course of action then? Do 1) X,2) its opposite or 3) "nothing"? Why that is left to the discretion of the individual.

Whichever way, one's inevitable fate is that of making a mistake, or many I suppose. But of course the opposite seems true as well.....

The Paradox Of “Good" Guys Using War For Peace's Sake

It is often resentfully claimed that when “good” guys are "forced" to attack “bad” guys, these “bad” guys routinely resort to cruel and sadistic methods to tip the scale in their favor. They even use innocent women and children as shields! Can you believe that? Innocent women and children as shields!

Well, since they have already been labeled “bad”, why should they be dissuaded from using any strategy which might afford them an advantage over the “good” guys. What do they have to lose in the way of reputation at this point? The best they can hope for in not using women and children as shields would be for others to view them as merely “bad” instead of something much worse. In essence, this would assure their defeat but be mitigated by the fact that others will see them as only “bad”.

This does not sound particularly alluring even to me. And I have little or no proclivity to get angry or violent when confronted by people that accuse me of being bad! What does one suppose a person with this proclivity will do if he is accused of being “bad”. If I had to guess, he will become really bad!

This is perhaps the most fundamental dilemma in trying to reconcile war to morality and peace. Labeling people negatively will only further aggravate them, in turn dragging them into an even deeper state of unconsciousness thus prompting their use of more and worse defensive measures.

Using violence under the guise of upholding truth and righteousness is yet more unconsciousness fighting unconsciousness*. This cycle will only ever manifest itself as more unconsciousness.


War is like a pendulum. No matter how out of equilibrium it might be at any given time (this being analogous to lulls in violence and conflict), if left untouched for sufficiently long, it will reach equilibrium (war)!

*Am I saying "we" should NEVER go to war? Decidedly not! Herein lies the most fundamental insanity and absurdity of existence.....fighting wars while claiming (and presumably believing) they will eventually lead to peace! If "we" choose to go to war or it is chosen for us, "we" should harbor no such pretense that peace will ever avail. War is what it is. Though there does not seem to be moral justification for it largely because of the indiscriminate death and destruction it leaves behind, many times it seems "we" must declare it. Once again, this is life's most insane and cruel irony!

Personal God?

Personal to whom? To me? To you? To them? I do not believe any type of existent God could be personal. At least insofar as how we individually and, dare I say, selfishly define personal. And why would we not? Or rather how could we not? What is personal if it does not revolve around self? Ideas of a personal God then seem to naturally mimic our individual preferences and whims.

But this will often conflict with a collective concept of what is preferable and desirable for society as a whole which is the only type of view I could ever imagine a hypothetical God espousing. Otherwise, whose side might He be on when there is disagreement?

Do you not see how arbitrary any answer to this is? In light of this dilemma, is it now quite apparent God's view must revolve around a collective perspective?

So in essence, I am saying that our individual concepts as to what makes God personal are by definition very selfish! If God acquiesces to my personal preferences, how then could He be personal to somebody else with competing preferences?

In the quintessential competition that is war, for example, somebody wins and somebody loses. How could God be personal to both? Therefore, there seems to be a dilemma with the idea of a personal God.

The Dilemma Of God's Intervention In Our Affairs

Can God actually intervene in a divine or “absolutely perfect” manner when it seems much of our perceived reality is akin to a zero-sum game? More often than not somebody wins and somebody loses so how can God really intervene in our affairs perfectly?

If it is believed God providentially circumstanced a highly coveted job to Zach, this means Sally and many others did not get the job. So of course from Zach's point of view, God's will is perfect. But why would or perhaps should Sally and the others feel any obligation to share this assessment of God?

If they do believe that not getting the job is God's perfect will, then it is my opinion this belief stems from their inability to accept that they “lost” to Zach. And if they “need” to believe there is a divine reason they did not get the job, perhaps because God has something better for them, then so be it. But the idea of assuming everything that happens is God's “absolutely perfect” will doesn't account for the fact that there is no consensus as to what is “absolutely perfect” anyway. Certainly those on the losing side of a war are not likely to see their annihilation as being “absolutely perfect”.

Maybe the only way for God to “give” us a fulfilled life is not to intervene at all. As such we can be our true selves limited only by our own devices. In this case there can be no “favoritism” toward those more beloved which would better explain the apparent arbitrariness of who is “lucky” in tragedies, for instance. But the moral dilemma in God recusing Himself from our affairs is that His character appears suspicious at best when He fails to intervene in the abuse and torture of children, for instance.

I think the only way a “perfect” God fits into the context of reality is if everything was always perfect. But alas, this is clearly not the case. It is also interesting to question how “fate” is meted out by God. It seems common to believe that when good outcomes befall the faithful, this wonderful “gift” from God stems from faith and righteousness. But when tragedy strikes these same faithful, it is reluctantly pointed out that even they are not immune to tragedy. What gives? This is a situation where the idea of a wonderful God is not even in principle falsifiable because there is always a divine reason for any outcome, however awful. How about just accepting what is and not trying to find God where He very likely isn't?

Another primary reason I do not think God intervenes in our affairs is that it would likely influence our behavior such that we are not our true selves. At this point, I feel inclined to ask that if God “made” me to be a certain way, why would I want to encumber myself with dogma that can only ever be an impediment to who He “made” me to be?

Now I am not saying dogma will necessarily influence or manipulate one to be who he is not, but if belief has no influence on a person's behavior, what purpose does it serve? The only purpose belief seems to serve is to encourage a specified behavior in those that would otherwise not behave accordingly.

For example, take Christian dogma. One who practices the moral beliefs of Christianity may in fact benefit society but from a “Godly” perspective, I don't see any “meaning” in belief just as a means to “encourage” somebody to behave in a specified manner. Especially when so much of the time it seems we fail to act according to our supposed beliefs anyway! So why believe?

Ultimately, the person who should be most admirable in God's eyes is the person who has a heart of gold all the while believing “nothing”. Clearly his behavior stems from “who he is” as opposed to being rooted in the belief that his obedience will garner reward while his disobedience will lead to judgment and punishment.