A question for theists

[catbert836]

Do you believe god created humans as the master of the Earth? Because most religions seem to claim so. It doesn't really make sense to me that a benevolent, caring god would make a race that has proven so destructive and wasteful to govern his creation.
Discuss.

[The Traveler]

1. Does the Divinity

have a "personality" as we understand it? Perhaps a god with a personality is too constrained to be the real thing. In that case, attributing motives like "caring" would likely be inaccurate.

Aetheists tend to place their questions in a context that assumes a Divinity with a personality. But personality is possible only in duality ... where seperation between subject and object is possible and indeed inevitable. The One posited by the Hebrew and other mystical traditions transcends duality ... expecting "it" to respond like a person is absurd.

I myself believe in a Divinity, a One ... but I do not believe (based on my own experience and history) that religion is all that useful in approaching a relationship with that Being. Too much extraneous baggage.

[catbert836]

2. Answer

I was assuming that theists believe in a divinity that is conscious, as well as benevolent and caring. You're right, I was wrong to forget other points of view.

[The Traveler]

4. Looks like you missed my point entirely

You assume a "big human", anthrocentric god. Big guy with a beard heaving lightning bolts or something. Seduces virgins. That kind of thing. Perhaps the Divinity does not HAVE a consciousness ... perhaps it IS consciousness. Etc.

[catbert836]

5. You're right

I said that I limited my question too much by assuming an athropmorphic, bearded-old-man-in the-sky kind of god. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that.

[Bloodblister Bob]

7. Atheists only speak of God as having a personality...

in order to discuss the concept of God with believers, who think God is real and has feelings.

[kwassa]

9. Many believers don't try anthropomorphizing God

[Igel]

3. I'm certainly not from a mainstream Xian faith,

although it could easily be called fundamentalist (I left maybe 15 years ago, with bits and pieces of worldview from it still intact, but they seem reasonable).

It wasn't explicit on the matter, but seemed to stress "dominion". As with most things, the shape of the word is less important than its content. The church had a big 'authority = responsibility to serve' theme going, based on Jesus' servanthood. The church's teaching was completely in line with a "stewardship" creed, Rushdoony's, in fact (I think it was ... it's been 20 years since I read the stuff), even though it predated Rushdoony and the compatibility was coincidental. To have dominion is to rule, to rule is to be a steward: use the earth, but maintain and preserve it with a view to having the grandkids and their grandkids be able to enjoy it. This can't be done completely non-destructively, but do the best you can, with that as the goal.

From Wikipedia:
"... In the United States, some Christians see an implied obligation to be responsible managers of resources, in various Biblical mandates. On that basis they argue for conservation measures, and believe that the role of caretaker of the earth, and of non-human creatures, rests on all people but especially Christians. For example in the environmental movement, these Christians call for "stewardship" of the planet."

That man's screwed things up is irrelevant in this view: what matters is being given the chance to do it right, and trying to do it right. If God created things once, he could do it again--why think that he's wedded to this particular creation or so feeble as to not be able to fix it later? Esp. since pre-millennial dispensationalist views tend to think of the present earth as not very important in the very long run, anyway.

The church I was in was nominally creationist, but you'd be hard put to notice: some kids sat through a lifetime of sermons and never realized it. It was old-earth creationist, and things like evolution were treated as, well, pretty much irrelevant to anything important.

[bluedawg12]

6. I am hoping there is a God, or god, or goddess. But

I have never seen this being and no I know or read of has either.

So that's a problem because now I have to sort out how much of my perception of a God is based on my own childhood experiences and teachings with in my culture and then how much is simply hoping that all this talk of a benign loving being is actually true.

Having said all of that, if there is a God, god, goddess, Being, I don't think we reflect that at all. We suck. Our species, my species is a lucky fluke of neurons which have given us a thin veneer of rational thought- but easily screwed up by just a tiny little short circuit..viz z viz...schizophrenia, OCD, head injury, metabolic disorders and the big one...death. the end of all of that great consciousness that we brag about and again, no one has ever returned to tell me in their spiritual form that gee...here they are sans body all bright shiny essence or soul. Seems like dead is dead.

The other thing, side stepping free will, is that our crappy little intellect, which couldn't even approach the type of CPU needed to invent the universe, is not even a speck of dust on the floor of god's library. We are only smart enough to breed like rats, gnaw up trees, pollute the waters and air, kill each other with ever more efficiency, and just barely manage to keep from barring our teeth in public and howling madly like wolves at the drop of a hat..we fight to keep our animal side under control but barely.

But then, I see something else, this insignificant little homo sapiens sitting here typing and playing with my tom cat- Mike- a natural predator and killer who is thanks to my influence( and lot's of food and warm shelter) actually a loving, playful, and gentle creature who follows me around like a little doggy and thinks he owns me. My intellect did that. It raised this forest creature to another level. But,that still doesn't mean that I am in the image of god, only that I use my mind in quirky feline-centered ways.

The ultimate act of hubris is man thinking that by thinking he is a part of God and God-like. Nice fantasy- it takes a lot of work to sustain that idea, lot's of exposure to church influence and teachings--hubris done right is hard work.

My first foray into the theology board-I hope I, as a talking dog, have made sense? :popcorn:

[Dorian Gray]

8. My opinion...

I think that we are more the stewards of the earth. I know that there is little distinction, but with the idea of steward comes protector. It's important that we protect the earth as we rule over it.

[PsychoDad]

10. We were meant to be the representatives of the One.

We were not to be the masters, but the stewards of creation.

"It doesn't really make sense to me that a benevolent, caring god would make a race that has proven so destructive and wasteful to govern his creation."

That's exactly the position the Angels take in the Quran. "Why create one who will create mischief and bloodshed", they asked.

Allah's answer was simply, "I know what you do not", implying that there is a greater plan designed and that the climax of our spiritual evolution has a designated point which God already knows.

Exactly what, we shall have to wait till the end of the play to find out.

[Jaybro37]

11. Do you believe god created humans as the master of the Earth?

While not a theist, I can't restrain myself. The question is akin to asking "Do you believe the world was created by a turtle? If so, What do you think it thinks about us? Is it a benign turtle or a malignant turtle? Is it an indifferent turtle? Does it only favor turtle-like creatures?"