Post #106,909
6/22/03 8:00:54 PM
|
Not necessarily
Is not what we experience here below a shadow of higher orders? "As above, so below". The tendency to organize into organisms of greater and greater complexity would prevail, until a level where all are One, and One is God, no? Not in my book. The tendency to organize into organisms of greater and greater complexity only necessitates diversity, not unity It doesn't require that there's any being more complex than Man, and if it did, that doesn't require that a God or Gods encompass "lower" life forms, anymore than Man encompasses invertebrates. In other words, the One (highest, most complex being) may be God, but that doesn't necessitate "all are One". And, as a toss-off side note, I whole-heartedly reject the use of "as above, so below" as an axiom of Reality. Just FYI.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #106,917
6/22/03 9:18:43 PM
|
From the viewpoint of "God is Without Limit" . .
. . it follows that All is included within God. If you say God is not All, then you are placing limits on God.
Of course, in the Pagan viewpoint, placing limits on god is routine. You draw a line around the hunk of All you wish to deal with and give it a name and personality. Now you have a "god" (an aspect of nature or natural forces or human characteristics or whatever you want to deal with) defined in a way which allows you to describe it's relationship with other similarly defined entities and how they relate to humanity, all in human terms. Such deliberately circumscribed definitions do not, however, invalidate All, which they are defined parts of.
So are you limiting God in the Pagan manner, or is God limitless, thus All Encompasing?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #106,949
6/23/03 1:53:20 AM
|
I think I made it clear earlier in this thread...
...that (in my understanding) God has chosen to limit himself. Creation is a distinct dualistic act; the concept that there is something "not God". I'm not saying every religion or theology believes this (far from it), but it seems to be supported in OT/NT Hebraic thought. So the phrase "from the viewpoint of 'God is Without Limit'" brings us right back to my earlier post (with Ross) about what one means by "omnipotent", and how that is more often an axiom of one's system than a conclusion.
So I'd take issue with the humanist viewpoint that *I* am placing limits on God; I am not the inventor of Christianity or Judaism for that matter. None of my theologizing comes from some Nietzschean proto-theos where I just woke up one day and decided to create a Deity. It comes from an honest investigation (and reconciliation) of the witness written down in the OT and NT--I happen to have found those authors to be reasonably accurate, and believe what they testify to. Do all "Christians" feel the same way (i.e. wrt Christian epistemology)? No. But they don't have to in order to gain the benefits of the contract.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #106,927
6/22/03 10:02:51 PM
|
To speak of Reality!
[Heh]
as if you possessed the slightest knowledge of what That might Be - is precisely that hubris from which 'we' began the unending wars of opposing Ones Who Profess to Know. Like du jour. Cosmic Liars Dice?
To similarly, imagine that you possess the means for concluding.. something (!) about such an idea as, "as above so below" - is another example of this same class of thought, only worse: presuming to 'prove' a negative via simple digital logic.
[Hah - Loop0: recursive non-enlightenment\ufffd in Jahweh-script] Seems a lot like,
I don't like Bach!
OK now we know about you. What about Bach?
Fortunately we are each permitted to limit our horizons to the small self-generated halo about our unanointed heads. I suspect that this is a self-limiting protection against biting off more than a one can chew.
Unless of course, such a one gets to be a President or something - then there's no protection for the others :( Oh well.
(What 'others' (?))
Ashton
who 'likes' the Hungarian proverb,
The believer is happy
The doubter is wise
|
Post #106,931
6/22/03 10:17:09 PM
|
G_d exists, we see or dont see in different ways
I know there is one but based on cause and effect personally, can I describe but an imperfect personal view of the entity I call as G_d? Not very effectivly. All religious writing are lensed thru the human writing them. If Ezekiel saw a spaceship what woukd be his point of reference? If a modern American saw a temporal representative created for a specific reason to nudge the anthill again, what would be the description? A lot of Alien encounters out there. Either one believes or does not, organizes their life around their understanding of that belief or decides there is nothing else and organizes their lives around self referencing morality. Either way we are both significant to the cosmos and insignificant both at the same time. We matter, my personal belief is that we retain our memories of everything we do and have enternity to contemplate them, with that in mind it drives my personal actions.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
As the Poets have mournfully sung.
Death takes the innocent young,
The rolling in money,
the screamingly funny,
And those who are very well hung.
W.H. Auden
|
Post #106,941
6/22/03 11:15:00 PM
|
If you Could 'describe'
-- what would be the point of "attempting to Know that which is not describable but Is" (or by any number of better chosen words) ?
There's nothing in 'Christianity' or any other -ism (read for comprehension, that is) - which prevents one from investigating what is all around; those who think there is such imprecation: are neither Christ-ians nor even good mimics. So no one is tied to the LCD of Whatever early conditioning and inculcation of fixed mindset has happened by accident of birth. Except by choosing dumbth - an active choice.
Aquinas is merely one of the known! ones who "went beyond" the narrow caricature of It All - that caricature which today represents most of what people imagine Christianity is 'about'. Ever thus - the literal mind is the herdsman of conformity and shallowness; to make up a religion with a decent chance of longevity (as L. Ron grokked to fullness):
You must have the dumbed down (Win MErde) version for the mass, and then escalate the level to er Clear. Always there are the esoteric, mesoteric and exoteric 'circles' about any Idea. Of course, as to LRon, when the basis for the formation of The Group - is exploitation$ of the gullible.. well what kinda karma might that earn?
You already know this stuff, or nothing I could say would make the slightest sense [heh]: which I submit as prina facie 'proof' that proselytizing ever only gains converts of the shallowest kind. If'n ya can't [== won't! because you be Lazy] figure it out for yourself -?- nobody Can "give it to you" cha cha cha.
Gotta Love.. Cosmic Humour
Ashton
|
Post #106,947
6/23/03 1:42:38 AM
|
And once again, you're doing the very thing you rail against
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #107,033
6/23/03 4:01:35 PM
|
Heh.. only if you imagine
that I'm selling Salvation (too!) - merely by applying *niti.. niti.. across the board of popular dabblings in the Grand Guesses - obv a more popular pastime than the NYT Sunday Crossword, we see.
I guess that some folks really have to believe that the girl Was sawed in half, then artfully reassembled by The Great Tetrazzini.. to appear in the fish tank behind the curtain.
Carry on.
I'll have the haddock. (On my plate, not my bumper thanyouverymuch)
Have no need to invent ways to scare myself into Line.
* not this.. not this..
I Who Be
|
