Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

I thought that the imagery of emanations of god into the relative world was no more significant than imagery of anthropomorphic high God Who intervenes in history as Creator and Maintainer . Are you saying that different imagery signifies different meaning?

You said, "The good causes us to know the relative world, and the good is also within the relative world. The good is not the relative world plus our awareness of the relative world, but transcends the relative world and our awareness of it, separately and both together. This transcending of both nature and our awareness of nature (i.e. extended matter and mind) is therefore more real than extended matter and mind. Is it not the case that what is Reality is Being?" That's Plotinus and the imagery of the sundial fits perfectly. I suggest reading Return to the One by Brian Hines.

There is only one God, who is all love; every human being has an immortal soul, whose highest destiny is to be united with God; if we live virtuous lives, we will join our heavenly Father after death, but if we do not, justice will be done; we must humbly yield to the divine will, accepting with equanimity whatever life brings us; to be attracted to the sensual pleasures of this world is to be distanced from God, the Good we seek but never find in material pursuits. And then there is the Christian conception of spirituality, which I won’t bother to summarize, as it should already be familiar to the reader.

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

Are you saying that different imagery signifies different meaning?

Yes. As I pointed out there is no mention of God or gods in relation to the forms and the good. Socrates was accused of atheism and never denied it.

My agenda is to find some religious/ethical narrative that is reasonable and aids life, peace and so on.

An admirable goal. Mine is quite different. Based on the assumption that we have a great deal to learn from the greatest minds I attempt to understand them on their own terms.

Plato has been appropriated in different ways for much of western history. That is not to say that this is wrong but it can be quite a shock to see a different picture emerge when one reads good translations of primary texts together with careful commentaries.

It is, however, a difficult task and some simply prefer to take what they find wherever they find it. Plato’s Socrates, in fact, says that he and his friends did just this. And sometimes an incorrect interpretation can yield useful and influential insights.

[Dark Matter]

An admirable goal. Mine is quite different. Based on the assumption that we have a great deal to learn from the greatest minds I attempt to understand them on their own terms.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." -- Matsuo Basho

[Fooloso4]

Dark Matter:

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." -- Matsuo Basho

You missed the irony. Actually there are two levels of irony. First, for those who read it and understand it. Second for those who do not understand as evidenced by repeating it.

Great thinkers give nothing away. A little lesson in how to read them.

[Hugh of Borg]

I don't think The Lord has done anything Wrong.
But people do many things that are Bad and many things that are Wrong and that is why they suffer.
Their MUST be consequences for Sin and for those who cause suffering to others.
And if that is the case, then that would explain all the suffering that there is on Earth.
People paying for their Sins. Sins they did in their previous life.
People suffering the rebound effects of causing suffering to others.
It HAS to be that way.
There HAS to be consequences for Bad things that people do.

And all the ones who Sin today, will pay for their Sins in their next lives.

[MindfulMystic]

For me, god did everything wrong...for another, he did nothing wrong. It's dependent on whether he is there for you, or if you are here for him. If I lived my life with him there for me, I will have him here for me-I would have done nothing wrong, and everything right. If however, I'm lived-being there for him while acknowledging him as being not here for me-I have done nothing right, and everything wrong...

God is our universal counter part. If I do nothing right and everything wrong, he does everything right-and nothing wrong. Keep in mind, in Existance there is only one thing-"it". That's not to say only 'IT' exists, because outside of Existance-is nothing. The conundrum that god faced, was exactly this. He did what we did, he defined what was done.

He gives definition to definition, and understanding to understanding...this was given what this is, and that was given what that is. After he did everything(or so he thought), all he had to do was nothing..this brings us to the reality of things. Nothing came before him, and he turned around! In his mind, that was giving nothing-when in fact, it was this sole action that gave us what we came to know as everything. When he took nothing(that was given), he gave everything(that was not given).

The universe has no one beside it, even if everyone is a side of it. God did exactly that, he assigned us as sides of Existance, according to our acceptance of him...he basically took the costume of no one, and relinquished everyone's to no one. This brought all of us to one, and none(no one) of us to all. Picture this, you've got nothing that I want-but everything that is wanted by me. I've got everything that you want, but nothing to be wanted by me. The choice was made to have choice. No one shouldn't have to be anyone, and everyone shouldn't have to be one of anything.

So here we are, no one coming out of things- meets the body that he was gone with going into. Thinking to know at this point that- "there" isn't a point, and known to "think" as "here pointing" caused our "perfected order" to encounter disordered perfection""..."this is it", we exclaimed. It was proclaimed by us,"we are here disordered, for me to be there;this ordered!". After I'd filed you, as me, in the incorrect order-as taught, I said "I have disordered me-there, into that order. I am now here, in perfection that is imperfectly disordered. What is it I haven't ordered?". Ponderously, I lipped our reply"no order was heard to us from me, because everything has ordered itself as me. Therefore I order myself, unto YOU-in the reverse, of my order".

Every direction becomes a director...every being, becomes nothing been. Everything been becomes, nothing to be ...what was all this for? Why should a mother birth a child, when birth concieved all fathers? Why have a tree sway, when naught escapes from swaying trees? In conclusion, before me, god was with everything done right by...even nothing, until I did everything wrong-and still had his nothing wrong, he was unaware of his predicament. I have me to thank for all of this-if I'm still there, could you thank me?

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

(Belindi wrote)

My agenda is to find some religious/ethical narrative that is reasonable and aids life, peace and so on.


(Fooloso4 replied) An admirable goal. Mine is quite different. Based on the assumption that we have a great deal to learn from the greatest minds I attempt to understand them on their own terms.

Is there a way to combine your aim and mine so that your philosophical aim is not an ivory tower, and mine doesn't distort the source?

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

Is there a way to combine your aim and mine so that your philosophical aim is not an ivory tower, and mine doesn't distort the source?

I think so. I am not sure how though.

[Dark Matter]

.

So the question in this thread is, what has the Lord actually done wrong, since his main goal was always to keep us safe.

Quite a bold assumption you make there.

[Felix]

Safety in numbers? Be fruitful and multiply? That hasn't quite worked out, has it?

[LuckyR]

A god's actions cannot be judged to be wrong or right without knowing what a god's goal or intention is. Since those are even more unknowable than whether there are even gods, this thread is a nonstarter.

[Sam26]

So many debates gravitate around the degrading of the Lord. In our attempts to disprove him or discredit him, we find some satisfaction. These questions and accusations bring us to a new question, what has he actually done wrong?

When we look at an imperfect world and all the pain and sorrow that goes along with it; we often say then he cannot exist. Looking at the story of Adam and Eve, we find why our world is broken. If we go from that story, we find that things were perfect, but that we were not satisfied enough with it. Somehow, we managed to not only doom that perfection, but also put continuity in it. In a world that is doomed, should it not be strange when something goes right, rather when something goes wrong?

Mainly, the Bible tells us how to live our lives right. It is concerned with our safety and protection and seemingly, that is what the crux of the book is. Despite this good intention, (of a book that is looking out for us), we are so unsatisfied with the Lord and the book, that we find it necessary to degrade and attack both. Why do we reward good intentions with anger and disbelief?

Reading the Word correctly is what is important. History is not instruction, but rather like drama, which we can choose not to adopt in our lives; yet people see everything in it as instruction, rather than life lessons to learn. They take the worse things out of context, rather choosing to focus on the story and so losing the message.

So the question in this thread is, what has the Lord actually done wrong, since his main goal was always to keep us safe. He is practical in all things, there does not seem to be anything abstract when it comes to sin, but we can always rather find some logical explanation why any sin is “wrong.” “Sin” and “wrong,” seem to be outdated words, which need reforming in order to demonstrate its practical value. So again, what has the Lord actually done wrong?

Number one, there is no Christian God, or any religious God. There is no evidence of the God that you think exists. Only your opinion, which you have a right too. The question you ask is, "What has the Lord done wrong?" If there is a God as defined by Christians, or any other religious group, then this God is responsible for all the evil in the world. If God is all-knowing, then presumably he would know what choices you would make before he created you. If this is true, then all the people who refuse to believe in the Christian God are going to hell for eternity. So why would a loving God create people that he knew would reject him? What would be the purpose of creating beings, especially if you knew that their choices would lead them into eternal damnation. That's not a loving being, and all your efforts to explain this are futile.

If there is a God, that God is probably so different from what you imagine, that you wouldn't recognize him/her or it.

[Prothero]

Number one, there is no Christian God, or any religious God. There is no evidence of the God that you think exists. Only your opinion, which you have a right too. The question you ask is, "What has the Lord done wrong?" If there is a God as defined by Christians, or any other religious group, then this God is responsible for all the evil in the world. If God is all-knowing, then presumably he would know what choices you would make before he created you. If this is true, then all the people who refuse to believe in the Christian God are going to hell for eternity. So why would a loving God create people that he knew would reject him? What would be the purpose of creating beings, especially if you knew that their choices would lead them into eternal damnation. That's not a loving being, and all your efforts to explain this are futile.
If there is a God, that God is probably so different from what you imagine, that you wouldn't recognize him/her or it.

Precisely, the traditional conceptions of God lead to intractable problems with free will, evil and logic.
The most interesting sentence is the last sentence which invites other conceptions of the divine for the religious and logically inclined who don't deal well with cognitive dissonance.

[Belindi]

Prothero wrote:

If there is a God, that God is probably so different from what you imagine, that you wouldn't recognize him/her or it.

Precisely, the traditional conceptions of God lead to intractable problems with free will, evil and logic.
The most interesting sentence is the last sentence which invites other conceptions of the divine for the religious and logically inclined who don't deal well with cognitive dissonance.

Yes, and the problem is how to give non-thinkers something to live for without also telling the myth as if it were certainty.

[Anand_Haqq]

. God did not anything wrong ...

. Man did it ... certainly ... For trying to adjust an ineffable phenomenon into his tiny racional scope about reality and existence ...

. God cannot be taught about. God cannot be expressed by any religion. In fact, every religion in one way or another is against God and its manifestations expressed in the world. Why is it so?

. Because ... God surpasses any logical idea ... any syllogism about reality. And any religion tryies to put into the illogicalness of reality in a intelligible phenomenon. That's non-sense.

. In order to cover this truth, they put unto you ... They manipulate you ... They brainwash you ... through the fear of Hell and the ambition for Heavenly pleasures ... Which nothing os more ... Than just Holy cow dung.

. God is simply everything. There is nothing in existence whose nature is apart from God's nature.

. God is Tao. God is Brahma. God is reality.