Kriswest:
Sorry that I seemed to have ignored your last post.
In response to it, let me say that I totally agree with that observation.
Jay M. Brewer
superchristianity.com
Tortoise:
Faith is completely irrelated to truth? Really? Then any item of faith is necessarily false? How?
Atheists possess “faith” that there exists a mind-independent physical reality that determines and shapes human perceptual experience. Is this “faith” irrelated to truth? If so, then why believe in a mind-independent reality?
Atheists possess “faith” that other people possess private, subjective conscious experience. Is this “faith” irrelated to truth? If so, then why believe that everyone beyond oneself is conscious? Might they only be automotons that move, produce sounds, and physically respond to one’s words and actions in such a way as to yield very powerful belief that they are conscious?
(One can use Ned Wright’s definition of “faith”: belief in something despite contradictory evidence or despite lack of evidence".)
Reason is the use of facts to arrive at certain conclusions concerning the nature of reality. But our facts unanimously come from the VR that is human perception. Given this, “rationality” is based upon essentialisms concerning the nature of the VR based upon the experience of the VR…and there exists a secondary “rationalism” based upon the use of logic in the discernment of logical possibilities that limitations within the VR leave open.
Thus we have two types of “rationality”.
(1) Positive rationalism, or the derivation of conclusions from empirical facts and refutation of conclusions based upon their sensory refutation from empirical fact
(2) Negative rationalism, or the derivation of logical possibilities given limitations within sensory perception and empirical knowledge, that cannot logically be ruled out even by further rational reflection.
Given the above, one can state that it is “irrational” to think that God exists if one relies solely upon (1) above…but it is not "irrational to think that God exists in the sense of (2).
Jay M. Brewer
blog.myspace.com/superchristianity
Tortoise:
You didn’t say in your last post: “Faith is completely irrelated to truth…”?
Jay M. Brewer
superchristianity.com
you did type it, its in your first post on this page
Thank you for your response i figure we all get busy and there is just so much time in the day.
I liked the response from Tortoise: “God was created in the image of man.”
Truth is; would not any God have to have commonality with its worshipers?
No creature could begin to deal with or wish to be with a creature that has no common grounds.
But then again, we are blinded by what we want from others. We don’t see others for what they are. We allow others to see what they want in us. why would not another sentient species do the same, call it God if you will. But, if you want something from someone you will let them see what they want.
Is a true loving parent sadistic when they discipline a child? If one looks at the god human relation as parant child. Sadistic would not be correct. If you look at it as a dominent creature over a submissive creature then Sadistic would be correct.
How do people see these alledged “omnipotent beings” parent or master?
Your view dictates the answer to the thread’s question. Is God sadistic?
Can you really consider God a parent. It created us gave us rules know that most humans wouldnt follow them, and that more pain and suffering would occure than happiness. Would a parent(a good one) do such a thing.
Im begining to see God as something like the architech from the matrix. He created us watches over us but doesnt help us, only views us and makes history repeat it’s self.
You just described a a loving caring hopeful parent. Parents have to let their kids learn by allowing them to get hurt from time to time. We can’t always reach out and help, we must allow each child to grow and stand on their own two feet. When we produce children we only can hope they have a good life. There cannot be guarantees.
Parents expect misbehavior from their children, its part of education and learning. We know our kids will break rules.
IMO if a kid followed all rules all the time, that would worry the crap out of me.
Indeed, for a human child. But God also created the devil who suposily is responsable for us breaking rules, and God knew it was going to happen, but punished man for it anyway, but was never there to tell us right from wrong. Also after God punishes us, he leaves again.
Ok there is dispute about creating the Devil. but on your point at any rate.
We set our kids up to standards we know that they can’t live by totally. If they don’t, we discipline them. We are in essence responsible for the child breaking the rules. We know the child will break the rules. Yet the child recieves the punishment. Then we back off and let the child try again. How is that different? Its not, its just a matter of degrees.
As far as god and the Devil the correlation is the same as a parent and child. The devil is the breaker of rules, it tempts us. If we follow that temptation, we get punished. Same as a kid.
not nessasarly, we cant see what are children will be like in the future, but God can see all and knows all, we can only expect and hope.
The devil is the ego. The ego is an inevitable side-effect of individualized consciousness. Because a man can’t see that he is one with everyone else, he treats them as ‘other’. Once a man realizes his oneness with others, he ceases to hurt them - the devil ceases to exist.
There is one complicating factor, that being natural instincts which don’t evolve quickly enough. I have a massive sex drive despite the fact that it’s not necessary anymore. This, joined with the fact that I see women as ‘other’, might lead me to rape one. We could compare this to wisdom teeth. When my wisdom teeth came through, it really hurt. And yet, we no longer need them… in fact, our heads aren’t even big enough to contain them anymore!
So, most suffering is caused by ego - we could ‘make poverty history’ if we wanted, but we care more about ourselves. Whilst there is a secondary element which is natural instincts adapting too slowly. This secondary problem is not necessarily manifest if one realizes the oneness of all, because we can control our natural instincts to some extent.
The reason a man goes to ‘hell’ if he allows the devil to tempt him is that, upon death, he realizes that he is one with all the people that he hurt (and perhaps that his life had a specific purpose, which he didn’t follow through), this understandably leads to much “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. I also don’t see why God would punish a man for not being able to realize something which was hidden. Man is individualized and blinded in the body, and the oneness of all is not clear to him. This is not his fault, so if he fails to realize it, he is not ‘guilty’ of anything. Why would a reasonable God punish him? As it happens, I believe we are one with God anyway, so it would be utterly illogical for him to punish us, as he would be punishing himself.
The devil as the ego makes sense. An icon for the ego moreso.
God is egoless, and living in heaven is being with god, and being without an ego. Basically this is non-existance.
The devil chooses to keep the ego and grow outside the realm of god. Perhaps this is fear of God, but fear of non-existance seems justified.
Even if a god knew all. we don’t. We need to learn. Look at it this way, Parents with one child give that child a whole lot of attention. Parents with 10 kids have to divide the time. Each child gets just a portion of what the only child gets. Thats logical right? Now if you are a leader of a large country is it possible to know each person? to spend time with each person? Does that mean you don’t care if you can’t help each one personally?
Why lay everything on Gods? If there are Gods don’t you think Gods are busy running thing things in this universe? Why do people expect a god to hold their hand? If god can’t hold their hand then god either does not exist or God is sadistic.
Put man’s writings about Gods in a more logical sense too. As children we see our parents one way. As we get older we see them differently. We know man wrote religious texts, we know man translated religious texts. And even priests , ministers, Rabbis etc. will tell you that religious texts are not to be taken literally but figuratively.
So between the possible embellishments of the first writers, the translators and then interpretations, then knowing Gods to be busy not kicked back on a lazy boy recliner. Gods need help, assistence, Is that not what angels and the devil and demons and lesser gods are? A way to assist a very busy creature. Gods may know all but, they still need to get the puzzle pieces in order. And my guess is they need some assistance.
It takes more than just two parents to raise one kid. Gods are responsible for the universe…Don’t you think its logical Gods would have assistants?
A busy person does not mean they don’t care, it just means they are busy.
If a god did not have faith in us being able to rise above temptations don’t you think things would be different? Is not faith about caring?
Yes, God is necessarily egoless. He is all, and so all-knowing. But an Ego requires belief in ‘otherness’. God knows that all is him, all is one, and so cannot believe in ‘otherness’ or have an ego. I wouldn’t equate absence of ego with non-existence, however. I’m not sure how you come to such a definition.
I also wouldn’t say the Devil chooses to keep the ego. When individualized consciousness was created, the new individual came into the world with the absence of knowledge. He looks at others, at their minds and bodies, and inevitably sees them as separate than himself. Hence the birth of the ego. This is an unavoidable side-effect of individualized consciousness. Only when one sees the unity of all can one depose the ego, and, in fact, I’d argue that its impossible to live in this life and have no ego at all. You must have a small semblance of an ego to be able to communicate.
This whole idea that the individual will ‘merge with God’ and so cease to exist, is one that used to bother me too. But then I came to the conclusion that, rather than growing towards perfection and then merging, we actually strip away all that is temporarily imposed form and then see that we are already God, so no ‘merging’ is necessary. Think of the Godhead like a blank piece of paper, and persona as elaborate drawings on top of it. You can’t have the drawings without the paper. But if you rub away the drawings, the paper is still there. Hence, I believe that the only true part of our being is our ‘essence’, and not our persona.
It seems logical that we should all set our sights on this supreme essence and let nothing else phase us. Material forms are like ice sculptures. You consider them all important, and then when they melt, you are distraught. The only thing it makes sense to value is that which will not melt.
God does have an ego - remember, he made us in his image.
Well… one has to wonder… did he make ME in his own image… or did he make the ratard in the wheelchair down the street in his own image?
For the sake of the universe… I hope It’s me…
This is probably a metaphor for ‘reflective consciousness’. Reason requires reflection.
Perhaps in a non-physical way.
so what you’re saying is that god isnt a god at all but a higher being. rome wasnt built in a day, but it was destroyed in three.
Um why is being a higher life form or being, negating being a god to humans?What is a criteria for a universal God? Do you know? Why is man the sole authority on Gods or beings? I figure we are not alone in this universe. I am not prepared to have a huge ego that claims I know all.
And what the heck does Rome have to do with it? Rome was not just the city. Rome was an empire, the people were Rome. 3 days to destroy Rome? Rome lives still, in the descendants and in the hearts and souls of humanity.