Did you ever see a Mike Tyson fight?
I don’t understand the reference to Tyson. Has he ever destroyed anything completely?
Destruction is a made up human concept, but so is creation.
Like all concepts, they never align perfectly with reality. But they are useful enough.
Didn’t mean to derail, you know how I feel about this subject: if you want to study anything with morality as a standard, don’t expect to find anything but your own moral judgement.
The faces and prides of his opponents.
In its original Latin sense, which is still used, they refer to actions taken on a structure: de-struct, con-struct.
In that sense, anything that can be said to have been put apart to the point that the structure is not there anymore, like demolishing an old house, is 100% destruction. Even chipping away a grain of concrete from a wall is a measure of destruction.
Construction is harder because you can’t just add randomly and call it construction. It has to add in a way so that it contributes to a discernible structure.
For Phyllo?
Yes it is.
As Pedro says, once the specific form is gone … it’s destroyed.
But it can be done at interminable levels, where the time for punishment is directly attributable to and closer apprehended as a direct consequence of that apprehension.
Deference to an extension may beg the question of crime and punishment
Eternity, like infinity, is not calculable from our temporal perspective. How can we assume what it entails?
As an old country song goes–“If love is not forever, what is forever for?”
phyllo
\
So, what you are saying here is that it completely disappears - no remnant nor residue?
Why can it not be seen as being "reshaped? What about the slab of marble which created Michelangelo’s David?
That was not destroyed - it was re-created and reshaped.
Remnants and residue are not important.
The original slab was destroyed when it got carved into David.
M’s David will be gone when somebody takes a sledgehammer to it.
Maybe some artists will carve little statues out of the pieces but those still won’t be David. It will be something else.
Matter is never destroyed; it is only changed in form.
Further, toward the Op-- A God who allows eternal punishment cannot be a God of love.
How do you know that God is “a god of love”?
Love is what I feel when God is near me.
Love is what I feel when Scarlett Johansson is near me.
God near me unites with the God within me causing Love.
Don’t you have better things to do other than mental masturbation? Your posts used to mean more.
Love is always creative whereas the absence of love can be destructive, depending on the power one gives to negativity.
Eternal punishment is a typical negative idea capable of destroying lives. It’s use as a deterrent for sins backfires.
Our view of God is anthropomorphic as is our view of the universe. In other words we see from a human perspective. Thus it is natural for us to imagine a God as being moral in human terms. Our need for the personal demands it.
That’s a problem. It distorts the reality.
Maybe. But what if being human is the only lens through which we can glimpse reality? What we are temporarily not equipped to see would have to break though our limits of vision in order to reveal Itself to us. Some claim God has already split time’s flat line and has revealed eternity to us. I think it was Boethius who believed that.
Here Phyllo seems to be in the postmodern camp who reject all sorts of grand narratives. Yet he supposes that he knows what reality is that all narratives of a personal God distorts.