Are We God's Pets?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Are We God's Pets?

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

So, I don't have any pets, right now. It would complicate my simple life beyond my capacity to cope. But as a child, we had a dog (Miranda) and a cat (Rufus). And I loved them both. We fed them, and bought them treats, and toys to keep them occupied and exercised.

I can't help wondering though, if God's relationship to us is not all that different to our relationship to pets. We love them, as He loves us; not as equals, but as subordinates to be pandered to and cared for and indulged, to keep them occupied and 'happy'.

If this is right, the cosmic battle between Good and Evil has no significance beyond a situation set up to engage us, like a pet toy, and provide us opportunity to develop virtue and forego vice. It is an amusing passtime, for those who accept the mission against evil, but maybe does not really matter in the long run of things, at all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #21

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:
Believe me, if I thought God wanted the sacrifice of innocents, I would be the first to denounce Him, here, there, and wherever. And I think most Christians would so rally. However futile that rally might be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

According to Christian theoogy God sanctioned the sacrifice of his innocent "son."
The sacrifice must go consenting, for something better than their lives, or it would not be a sacrifice, but suicide or murder. Jesus, I think, had His own reasons to go to the cross. And I would not be surprised to discover that such reasons were for the good of humanity, rather than the glory of Himself.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #22

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:
It cannot be so surprising that over the last 6000 years or so, since scripture was first written, we have made at least some moral progress.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Not because of Scripture but despite it. Much progress has been made in the last couple of centuries by ignoring advice to stop witches going about their business and by accepting that what adults choose to do with each other in consenting terms should not involve death penalties.

Of course some of our brothers, steeped in their own version of Scripture, still stone wayward girls or kill folk for blasphemy. Christians and atheists are good because they choose to be. God has absolutely nothing to do with the goodness of various individuals, though some may generously ascribe their good actions to him. And the devil doesn't put guns or knives in the hands of the wicked.

If we are God's pets, then some of us are terribly neglected, and a call to the Intergalactic Agency that oversees the welfare of beasts should be informed. But How?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #23

Post by bluethread »

marco wrote:
bluethread wrote:

Which organization would you suggest we report Him to and what would you presume that organization would do?

If God exists we can assume, under the same supposition, that we have recourse to those who would curtail his excesses. After all, in mythology, powerful gods can be thwarted. Take Cronus, duped into swallowing a stone, instead of eating Zeus, as he did his other offspring.

Rubens and Goya would give us some ideas for our imaginative exercise.

https://classicalartsuniverse.com/wp-co ... saturn.jpg

http://www.19thcenturyart-facos.com/sit ... .4.11s.jpg
If that recourse is available, you could take it. However, as the saying goes, "Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him." I would also add, unless you are willing to endure the chaos that would ensue.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #24

Post by marco »

bluethread wrote:

If that recourse is available, you could take it. However, as the saying goes, �Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.�

That is a wise comment and shows the mortar that makes people cling to God - fear.
In the OT he is terrifying; I find it hard to recall a passage where he transforms into a benign deity. So naturally people experience fear and call it love. Perhaps Yahweh inspired the Roman saying, attributed to Accius: "Oderint dum metuant," - let them hate so along as they fear. But I think Yahweh would prefer the nearly impossibe mix of love and fear.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #25

Post by bluethread »

marco wrote:
bluethread wrote:

If that recourse is available, you could take it. However, as the saying goes, �Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.�

That is a wise comment and shows the mortar that makes people cling to God - fear.
In the OT he is terrifying; I find it hard to recall a passage where he transforms into a benign deity. So naturally people experience fear and call it love. Perhaps Yahweh inspired the Roman saying, attributed to Accius: "Oderint dum metuant," - let them hate so along as they fear. But I think Yahweh would prefer the nearly impossibe mix of love and fear.
Machiavelli did say, "Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present."

So, it is the nature of man that makes fear more valuable. However, he also said, "... no prince is ever benefited by making himself hated." Therefore, life is not as simple as some positivists make it out to be. It must be remembered that love, fear and hatred are not opposites, but facets of passion. Indifference is the opposite of them all and the greatest of blasphemies. That is what is meant by the command, "Thou shall not take the name of Adonai Eloheim in vane." If one has commited oneself to Adonai, one must be passionate about that commitment.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11067
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #26

Post by ttruscott »

marco wrote:I find it hard to recall a passage where he transforms into a benign deity.

Matt 1:1 except He does no transformation, HE merely does HIS next revelation of HIMself the progression of HIS revelations.
PCE Theology as I see it...

We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.

This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #27

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:
It cannot be so surprising that over the last 6000 years or so, since scripture was first written, we have made at least some moral progress.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Not because of Scripture but despite it.
To be sure. Recently. I was not ascribing all moral progress as directly caused by scripture, just pointing out the correlation. Yet, I cannot help but think that the morality of the scriptures was the state of the ethical art of the time, and just as revolutionary then as the notions of gay rights and the egalitarian, socially just distribution of wealth are now. Or why bother to document it?

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1450
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #28

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
If we are God's pets, then some of us are terribly neglected, and a call to the Intergalactic Agency that oversees the welfare of beasts should be informed. But How?
God is there, for those who seek Him with an open, loving heart. But it is my belief that He acts for us, through us. If we do not love Him, and each other, as Jesus once commanded us, then He cannot so act through us, for us. And that is the way this war of Good against Evil progresses; God, it seems, will do nothing that might compromise our freedom of will. If we rail against the neglect of unfortunates, God has placed the ball squarely in our court, for our spiritual betterment.

And that gives us something worthwhile to exercise us, like that hamster wheel is for hamsters, and a woolen ball is for kittens, and shot pheasants are for retrievers.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #29

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:

To be sure. Recently. I was not ascribing all moral progress as directly caused by scripture, just pointing out the correlation. Yet, I cannot help but think that the morality of the scriptures was the state of the ethical art of the time, and just as revolutionary then as the notions of gay rights and the egalitarian, socially just distribution of wealth are now. Or why bother to document it?
Progress of any sort is welcome and no doubt the ancients were elated and proud that they'd stopped sacrificing children. Muhammad is credited with the revolutionary suggestion that burying female babies alive is not nice.

So if today we have stopped burning people for wondering negatively about God or drowning old women for having an unfortunate complexion or incarcerating men for loving men then this distancing from Scripture is to be welcomed. Sadly, Islam is still learning these elementary lessons. Some of God's Islamic pets want to kill us.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #30

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:


God is there, for those who seek Him with an open, loving heart. But it is my belief that He acts for us, through us. If we do not love Him, and each other, as Jesus once commanded us, then He cannot so act through us, for us. And that is the way this war of Good against Evil progresses; God, it seems, will do nothing that might compromise our freedom of will. If we rail against the neglect of unfortunates, God has placed the ball squarely in our court, for our spiritual betterment.


Fine thoughts. Some of us may be able to do something about some of the things but dying babies don't have the power God wants them to employ. So he lets Jim suffer and die because John won't help.

As for loving before seeing or knowing, I reckon this is an impossibility, though modern technology does allow some advanced souls to fall in love with strangers, accessed via the Internet. I don't think God uses the Internet.
2ndRateMind wrote:

And that gives us something worthwhile to exercise us, like that hamster wheel is for hamsters, and a woolen ball is for kittens, and shot pheasants are for retrievers.


How are the mighty fallen! Some do believe man is a hamster on a wheel, or a broken toy of God. God who placed man in a snake garden, with mosquitoes, earthquakes, floods and furious beasts, and pronounced it good, is to be the beneficiary of grateful love.

The doctor down the road who helps the sick should be a btter choice for that love.

Best regards

Post Reply