Are We God's Pets?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 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: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #31

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
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 ... Some of God's Islamic pets want to kill us.
Again, to be sure. Not all of humanity advances ethically at the same rate as each other. Particularly if they deliberately disregard the Gospels.

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #32

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
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.
I never said life wasn't tough. It is tough for those who suffer, and it is tough for those who don't to give up their power and riches. And that is why this war of Good vs Evil is meaningful, and, if we have any conscience at all, exercises us.

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 #33

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:

I never said life wasn't tough. It is tough for those who suffer, and it is tough for those who don't to give up their power and riches. And that is why this war of Good vs Evil is meaningful, and, if we have any conscience at all, exercises us.
Your metaphor is false. In a war we have two opposing forces. When we have earthquakes, tsunamis and children wiped out, we have no war, just random destruction. Free will has nothing to do with this situation. If, as many suppose, God is the author of all things, then one would also suppose he has a certain reponsibility for maintaining the dangerous parts of his machinery. A father cannot bring a tiger into his garden and claim it was the tiger to blame for the death of some child.

The honest view would be that God can do whatever he wants. And does. The less dramatic view would be that we make our own progress, where we can, without outside assistance. It has ever been so. Pets we may be but our owner has fled. Go well.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #34

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
As for loving before seeing or knowing, I reckon this is an impossibility...
Yes, there is a certain circularity about Christianity; to know God, you must love Him, but to love Him, you must know Him.

I can only relate my own experience as to how I entered the circle, and it was by loving absolutes first; the true, the noble, the good, the just, the kind, the decent, the beauteous, etc, and then by realising that all these absolutes were neither more nor less than the attributes of God. Pursue any of these absolutes relentlessly and wholeheartedly, or all of them together, and you will, I am sure, discover your God.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #35

Post by 2ndRateMind »

marco wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:

I never said life wasn't tough. It is tough for those who suffer, and it is tough for those who don't to give up their power and riches. And that is why this war of Good vs Evil is meaningful, and, if we have any conscience at all, exercises us.
Your metaphor is false. In a war we have two opposing forces. When we have earthquakes, tsunamis and children wiped out, we have no war, just random destruction.
Uh huh. You touch on the distinction between two types of evil; natural and moral. So far we have been discussing moral evil (why is the undeserving Trump a billionaire while some cannot even afford to feed their own children), but natural evil is just as relevant, I grant.

So, the answer to this conundrum that satisfies me runs as follows. We could not have mountains without valleys. We could not have continents without oceans. We could not have sunshine without clouds and rain. And they all imply a world that along with it's best, must have it's worst. Quite how God may have contrived the Himalayas or the Rockies or the Alps, and all their micro-climates so suitable to a wide diversity of life, without tectonic plates and the necessary vulnerability to earthquakes and tsunamis, defeats me.

Perhaps, naturally speaking, this world really is the best of all possible worlds.

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 #36

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:
can only relate my own experience as to how I entered the circle, and it was by loving absolutes first; the true, the noble, the good, the just, the kind, the decent, the beauteous, etc, and then by realising that all these absolutes were neither more nor less than the attributes of God. Pursue any of these absolutes relentlessly and wholeheartedly, or all of them together, and you will, I am sure, discover your God.
I admire your humility and your pursuit of excellence. Tell me, though, what is the difference between endowing your invisible God with these virtues and some native ascribing healing powers to a wooden totem? The pursuit of truth and beauty is its own reward. A good person donates the credit to God. Sacrifice of any sort is deeply satisfying, I think. The youthful Keats, shortly before his death where he may well have discovered otherwise, declared:
" Beauty is truth, truth beauty; that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

To some extent he is right.

Go well.

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 #37

Post by marco »

2ndRateMind wrote:
We could not have continents without oceans. We could not have sunshine without clouds and rain.
When Juliet remarked that parting is such sweet sorrow, she was experiencing the same feeling for the necessity of bitterness to make sweetness sweeter. However, I think that introducing mass deaths, as in Pompeii and Herculaneum, do not make life for the living sweeter. A child's death is not the necessity of valley and mountain, for we can happily live without such a tragedy, whereas mountain needs valley. Yours is a false comparison.
2ndRateMind wrote:
Quite how God may have contrived the Himalayas or the Rockies or the Alps, and all their micro-climates so suitable to a wide diversity of life, without tectonic plates and the necessary vulnerability to earthquakes and tsunamis, defeats me.
The plates crashed without a nod from God, and lo, Everest was Everest. It is kind to say about our God that he had no choice; he adds a little salt lest we grow too happy in our happiness; the faults we see are virtues, for our wisdom is foolishness. And from that cave of reason we get the proposition that God so loved the world that he watched his son being crucified.

My own view is it is best to accept Madame Randomness has no favourites.


I enjoy your well-expressed viewpoints. Best wishes.

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #38

Post by ttruscott »

2ndRateMind wrote:I can't help wondering though, if God's relationship to us is not all that different to our relationship to pets.
GOD taught Adam that the animals did not make good mates / helpmeets.

Since the bible ends with the Church being married to HIM and so presumably to each other in one system of holy, loving, telepathic communion it seems obvious that we are no only created different from the animals (ie as marriage partners) but also the love for a pet is a poor poor symbol for the love GOD has for those whom HE is willing to marry.
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
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 #39

Post by marco »

ttruscott wrote:

Since the bible ends with the Church being married to HIM and so presumably to each other in one system of holy, loving, telepathic communion it seems obvious that we are not only created different from the animals (ie as marriage partners) but also the love for a pet is a poor poor symbol for the love GOD has for those whom HE is willing to marry.

Well the problem is that we can experience our love for our dog, and feel its reciprocation. If we pretend we have some sort of love for God we likewise have to pretend it is reciprocated. All in all actuality is better than pretence. We are humans and we need human love, not a promise of some appreciation when we as cosmic voyagers we become spiritual entities.

What father gives his son a stone when he asks for bread?

User avatar
ttruscott
Site Supporter
Posts: 11064
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
Location: West Coast of Canada
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Are We God's Pets?

Post #40

Post by ttruscott »

marco wrote:
ttruscott wrote: Since the bible ends with the Church being married to HIM and so presumably to each other in one system of holy, loving, telepathic communion it seems obvious that we are not only created different from the animals (ie as marriage partners) but also the love for a pet is a poor poor symbol for the love GOD has for those whom HE is willing to marry.
Well the problem is that we can experience our love for our dog, and feel its reciprocation. If we pretend we have some sort of love for God we likewise have to pretend it is reciprocated. All in all actuality is better than pretence. We are humans and we need human love, not a promise of some appreciation when we as cosmic voyagers we become spiritual entities.

What father gives his son a stone when he asks for bread?
Does your dog feel and trust your love all the time, even when he is in the dog house for being bad, or is he not sad and and seeking? Do they not feel abandoned when left alone until they're older and learn to trust? Does our feelings of abandonment prove HE doesn't exist or doesn't love us? The actuality you require seems to be an actuality not available while we are in the earthly proverbial dog house.

This life is not our life of living in love with GOD (I mean, really...) but Earth is our dog house of remorse, leading hopefully to a permanent change of behaviour. The dog house does NOT portray the life of love in the park on ball day...

Stone? What father lets his child out of time out when he demands it? What father lets the child out for crocodile tears of false remorse, 'Let me out so I can do it again!"? What father treats the psychopathic enemies of his family like he does his children?
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.

Post Reply