| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:01 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
 |
|
"Carlcat" <booboo@booboo.net> wrote in message
news:ukiVb.28246$EH5.19077@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
Natural ills are just that - blind, mindless nature doing its thing.
For me to accept either a retarded creator or a smart but
irresponsible creator would be to invoke an unnecessary hypothesis -
and to derive a mindful Cause from a mindless universe, which to me
makes no sense. This does not make me an atheist, though - in fact,
I'm not. I'm a panentheist (not a pantheist), which means I believe
that god is here (immanent) and more than here (transcendent). Having
discarded the god of supernatural theism permits me the luxury of not
needing to work out the exact nature of god's relationship to the
universe - I leave theodicy for those who posit a perfect supernatural
interventionist god.
Ok, so God is transcendent, though immediate to you in some way, and not
related to matter, not related to the laws of this universe, and not
involved in creating or interventionist activity. Sounds similar to
Marcion without refering to the Old Testament God as a metaphysical
entity. Even if the Demiurge is an ALLEGORY of the laws of nature and
the processes of evolution, if you identify with the stories told about
the Demiurge as relevant to our own ego consciousnesses in our psyche's,
and the way the world works ignorantly, personified, then it sounds like
you are Gnostic enough in affirming that the True God is NOT creator or
ruler of this world. That is a KEY insight that neither panethiests nor
traditional theists make, but that Gnostics did make, and one that
atheists do not consider since they deny any sort of God.
|
Goooood point!
| Quote: | The perfect supernatural interventionist god is particularly
obnoxious and is the cause of most atheism - a perfect, loving
omniscient, omnipotent being who only intervenes to prove a point
(e.g., parting the Red Sea, bullying Job, raising a divine "Son" back
to life, etc.) simply cannot be forgiven for Its millions of
non-interventions.
It is often stated that limiting God's power or realm of influence
absolves God from not intervening, i.e., God CAN'T intervene, or at
least, most of the time, for reasons we may or may not wish to theorize
about.
|
This is something that has me a little worried in my own thinking. If we
accept the Biblical account, and accept that God knows a lot more than us,
(I think in Isaiah somewhere, God claims that His ways are higher than ours
and His thoughts are higher), then this has serious implications for our own
ideas.
For example, God didn't intervene to stop the deaths of millions of Jewish
people throughout the centuries. He let them die some pretty horrible deaths
at the hands of others, and these same Jews are supposed to be His "chosen".
Why would he do nothing?? Maybe there was a purpose or a "greater good" that
we can have no idea about? As insane as it may seem to us?
| Quote: |
I'm only Gnostic in the sense that I agree with them that:
the universe is meaningless pain; spirit and matter are not
identical (here I reject hylic science's pronouncements that "We Are
The Brain"); if god exists, It is essentially the hidden, "alien"
Godhead, not a creator (if such exists) or the deity of any particular
myth or religion; god is the object not of belief but of experience,
etc.
That sounds pretty Gnostic to me, although in all fairness some
Buddhists might say the same thing, and many Buddhists as well as
Gnostics affirm value in recognizing their differences. Show me a
Buddhist that is 'pessimistic' enough, and well, if he walks like a
Gnostic, water rolls off his back like a Gnostic, and he quacks like a
Gnostic, then he's a duck.
|
Interesting. A duck.  There you go, Penitent, you're a "duck"....
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
size snip |
| Quote: | I would think it's the Really Real, since it does not seem to occupy
spacetime the way the body-brain does. In fact it drags the
body-brain along in its wake, and its artifacts have changed the face
of the planet, for good and ill. I don't derive mind's reality from
its action in the hyletic universe or its influence on the hyletic
brain-body.
On this paragraph, I would certainly agree. There is a definite difference
between mind and the physical. In addition, I agree that physical embodiment
is not needed for a mind to exist. If this were so, all talk about God would
be a moot point and a waste of time. Finally, our own existence after death
is dependant on the mind being able to function and survive after the body
has turned to worm food.
|
Of course, holding these views puts us in the Outer Darkness
reserved for heretickes by the neurological Establishment. For them,
mind is a function of neuromatter and ceases with brain death...
| Quote: | I think experience can safely show that mind does act in the physical realm,
at some level. Therefore, there is some connection. That interface I would
suggest is the body. The body is not a foundational requirement for the
mind, but I think the word "interface" fits the body's function wrt the
mind.
|
That could work... also in some places I've read that the soul is
the interface between spirit and matter - it partakes in both - I
dunno.
| Quote: | Quantification is for material objects and processes that can be
measured, and so is a hylic function. Spirit-mind, otoh, not being
material, couldn't (shouldn't?) care less about taking its measure of
reality from the material, quantifiable universe.
Absolutely agreed. I think I have agreed with this in the previous
paragraph.
|
Ok
| Quote: | It knows itself
independently from and without recourse to, sensory input. On a
mundane level, it knows when it's depressed or when it has an
intuition or a realization, without such information coming to it from
the external hylic universe and the hylic bodily senses.
I would also agree with this.
|
ok
| Quote: | So I don't
put much stock in mind's manipulation of the material universe as
granting for mind x-amount of quantifiability, and therefore of
"reality".
I should probably explain further what I meant, as nearly everything you
have said is something that I would agree with. I was not meaning to suggest
that mind derives its reality from the physical, though reading back, I can
see how I seemed to imply that.
|
ok
| Quote: | As you said, mind seems to function outside the "space-time" realm that the
body occupies. Having said that, we have minds which seem to be beyond
theories that show where we evolved from. Where did "mind" come from? How
did it "evolve"? If one holds that mind is simply the firing of neurons in
the brain, then possibly mind can evolve. However, this would put mind on a
purely physical level. Hence, when the "brain" stops, so does the mind.
|
Exactly the consensus materialist position. A hyletic explanation
of concsiousness which seems the simplest, if not the best. It's so
easy to account for a body-dependent consciousness than vice-versa.
Materialists ask where spirit "comes from" if not from neuro activity.
Ultimately, I don't think this can be answered even from their POV -
if spirit comes from brain, then where did the brain "come from"?
They say - from the body- which comes from the fertilized egg -
which comes from generations of ancestors back through evolutionary
eons to the "first simple life in the sea", which came from
electrically charged atmospherics (or was brought by meteorites),
which came from weather, which came from atmosphere, which came from
H20, which was an element in the cooling earth, which came from the
coalescence of the solar system which came from the galaxy ,which came
from the Big Bang, which came from.... WELL, WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
Ultimately, materialists don't (yet) know where the Big Bang "came
from", whether it was a unique event or was preceded by something,
anything, or nothing. So when they press for where spirit "came
from", I press back and ask where did the BB "come from". Not a
solution, but maybe a stalemate...?
| Quote: | It seems that we agree that mind is not purely physical or even physical at
all. As such, I see a few problems with the theories regarding beginnings of
humanity and the beginning of mind. How can something that is outside the
body's space-time realm be simply evolved?
|
Of course, materialists don't accept that anything is not purely
physical and outside the body's realm. They say the brain evolved,
with a quality of consiousness appropriate to each stage of
development - as do humans thru the course of their lives.
I wonder - if we grant them that mind is a product of neuro activity
- we could use the analogy of steam:
steam is a product of heat applied to water - yet once created,
steam has properties different from its fluid form as water in the
kettle - including the ability to float in the air. Perhaps
consciousness is similar: once created by neural nets, it undergoes a
state change and lives a life categorically different from the brain
that produced it. That's why the psyche has needs unknown to and
irrelevant for the brain. Maybe.
| Quote: | How can the "big bang" simply
blow the mind into existence from nothing? It can't. Well, at least, in
anything that I have read, (which is admittedly small), I have found nothing
that would suggest a reason why, (except to reduce the mind to a series of
physical processes and properties).
|
They say that the BB blew matter into existence, including neural
matter, which is "thinking matter".
| Quote: | So, finally, I think that the presence of mind here can really only be
explained if we have a mind who created the universe, (the morality of that
creation aside). The mind itself points, (I don't mean *proves* here!), to a
creator of some sort.
|
Could be. Or mind could operate like the panentheist god - it has
always been around as an item separate from the material world.
Uncreated, like god. Obviously, not egoic, body-bound individual
minds - but the mind as such, in its native state. In which case,
it's a "given" of existence and not a product of a creator.
size snip
| Quote: | Could be like how a mindless body can include our individual
spirits. If, along with the Gnostics, we are strict dualists, it only
makes sense to deny sentiency to the ape-body our spirits inhabit.
Yes, New Agers and Yoga preachers promote "the ancient wisdom of the
body", but even that "wisdom" is not equivalent to that of the spirit.
"Me as me", myself as myself, is not my brain or my body. I live in,
or am "included" in the mindless "universe"/microcosm of my body.
Maybe its the same with god, who might be found in, or is "included
in", the mindless hylic universe...? That is, "mind" is present in,
but is not derivative of, the nonsentient universe.
I would agree with your statements here, as far as I understand them. Which
could be incorrectly, actually. Let me read these again and think about
them. :-)
[snipped]
I would debate that it is the cause of "most atheism", (it certainly was
the
cause of mine, anyway). However, I do agree that the times when God
appears
to have done nothing, (I use "appear" as I do not fully understand God at
all), do raise serious questions that require answers. I have asked these
questions before and still do, without any real progress, I am afraid.
Me, too, but recently I'm finding panentheism helpful in this
regard, because it "lets me off the hook" in terms of dredging up a
theodicy to explain the supernatural/interventionist/creator god's
utter passivity in the face of mind-boggling human and animal
suffering. I say this because panentheism does not (necessarily)
require working out god's relationship, if any, to the universe. For
all I know, "God" is just there, like the atmosphere, without any
causational relationship and therefore without any blame or praise for
a universe to which it relates only obliquely, if at all. (If memory
serves, Buddha Nature inheres in all things, but it is not a First
Cause or a Creator or a Moral Force - but I could be mistaken.)
Of greater importance to me, is the examples when God has ordered the
obliteration of entire cultural groups. I can't think of an example's
name,
but there is an instance in the Bible where God orders the Israelites to
exterminate a nation's men, women, children and even the livestock. To
me,
these issues where God *actively* ordered the murder of innocents are
glaring issues.
It's some solace to remember that this God-image had been
commandeered by the traditions which preserved the story. In these
examples, God has been "drafted" into the role of Commander in Chief
of Israel's political-military interests. Those who preserved the
prophetic books present God in a quite different - a merciful, wise,
restrained - light much of the time. What is most disturbing to me is
that fundies insist in the literal inerrancy of these gruesome
stories, and promote that God _actually_ did and does such things.
Actually, this is an angle that I hadn't thought of recently. And the
general distinction of the prophetic books and the others seems to hold
true. Despite the overall "mercy" of the prophetic books, they do still hold
some of that brutality and misery that is ordered against the neighbours.
|
Yes... it probably took some time to evolve to the consciousness of
Jonah, where the Lord has compassion on the Ninevites, including
"their many cattle" (Jonah 4:11b).
| Quote: | The Israelites are repeatedly warned that other nations will destroy them,
and they will lose their lands and so on. The Exiles are the result of that.
These warnings came via the prophets, the only difference being is the
target of that wrath. So, while I agree that there is more of a merciful
element in the prophets, there is also an element of brutality to them and
to God's warnings to them.
|
I take a somewhat softer view - I think that some prophets were
saying not what would happen, or must happen - but rather what would
likely happen IF the prophetic message went unheeded. There's an
implied threat there, but also an implied promise. Just as with
JBap's "prophecy" where unrepentants would be uprooted UNLESS they
opened to the coming Kingdom, or Jesus' prediction that society would
crumble IF the Kingdom was not acted upon.
| Quote: | [snipped]
[snipped]
Yeah, I agree. I also have a problem with worship, since to worship
is to wallow in "sinful" creaturehood, whereas the truth of the
esoteric traditions is that in regard to the divine,"We Are That",
already - sleeping deities blinded by ignorance, who have the
potential of awakening into our own godhood. Hence worship can only
keep one imprisoned in the delusion that we are little unworthy
bottom-feeders separated from god by sin and creatureliness.
For me, worship in itself is no problem. It depends on the object of that
worship. If the object is a murderous, genocidal tyrant with an inferiority
complex, then I think worship is not something I would be happy with.
However, if the object is the true God, and is perfect in every way, worthy
of it, then I have no issues.
|
We can agree to disagree, then. I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:2ipb20hnguav5ug3vso0tqtqpu668fhgvs@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
|
[snipped massively]
| Quote: |
The Israelites are repeatedly warned that other nations will destroy
them,
and they will lose their lands and so on. The Exiles are the result of
that.
These warnings came via the prophets, the only difference being is the
target of that wrath. So, while I agree that there is more of a merciful
element in the prophets, there is also an element of brutality to them
and
to God's warnings to them.
I take a somewhat softer view - I think that some prophets were
saying not what would happen, or must happen - but rather what would
likely happen IF the prophetic message went unheeded. There's an
implied threat there, but also an implied promise. Just as with
JBap's "prophecy" where unrepentants would be uprooted UNLESS they
opened to the coming Kingdom, or Jesus' prediction that society would
crumble IF the Kingdom was not acted upon.
|
I think there are many instances where, as you say, prophetic threats of
destruction have been balanced with promises of something. However, that
implied threat has some reality to it: in three instances that I can think
of just from memory, God acted on it:
1. The Egyptian Plagues
2. The exile of Israel
3. The exile of Judah
This is not to mention the examples where God killed off a few of the
Israelites in smaller scale "sprees".
This would indicate that none of the brutality has been lost, as God is more
than willing to carry it out. It would seem that he would not be bluffing.
I think this is rather indicative of the character of God, which is what I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in the
OT.
[snipped]
| Quote: | We can agree to disagree, then. I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
|
I can certianly live with agreeing to disagree. I don't think a true god
*needs* it, but it establishs some acknowledgement of the reality of things.
Basically, speaking, of course.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
klaus schilling
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2004 5:31 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> writes:
| Quote: | All they must do is
recognize evolution as a very ignorant, negative, and/or perniciously
evil reality shaping our existence here, being responsible for this
world's creation and rule by Fate.
|
everyone right in its mind knows that it is so
Klaus Schilling |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:24 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:24:33 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:2ipb20hnguav5ug3vso0tqtqpu668fhgvs@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
[snipped massively]
The Israelites are repeatedly warned that other nations will destroy
them,
and they will lose their lands and so on. The Exiles are the result of
that.
These warnings came via the prophets, the only difference being is the
target of that wrath. So, while I agree that there is more of a merciful
element in the prophets, there is also an element of brutality to them
and
to God's warnings to them.
I take a somewhat softer view - I think that some prophets were
saying not what would happen, or must happen - but rather what would
likely happen IF the prophetic message went unheeded. There's an
implied threat there, but also an implied promise. Just as with
JBap's "prophecy" where unrepentants would be uprooted UNLESS they
opened to the coming Kingdom, or Jesus' prediction that society would
crumble IF the Kingdom was not acted upon.
I think there are many instances where, as you say, prophetic threats of
destruction have been balanced with promises of something. However, that
implied threat has some reality to it: in three instances that I can think
of just from memory, God acted on it:
|
At least, they _believed_ that god acted on it - which to me is at
least as disturbing as god doing it. "Making sense" of catastrophe by
interpreting it as divine punishment actually makes no sense - and it
shames both the believer and the god that is believed-in.
| Quote: |
1. The Egyptian Plagues
2. The exile of Israel
3. The exile of Judah
This is not to mention the examples where God killed off a few of the
Israelites in smaller scale "sprees".
This would indicate that none of the brutality has been lost, as God is more
than willing to carry it out. It would seem that he would not be bluffing.
|
Since I don't believe in a supernatural/interventionist god, I don't
believe that god threatens and/or carries out punishments or promises
and dispenses rewards. To me, the root problem isn't god doing these
things, but people's insistence on god doing such things.
| Quote: | I think this is rather indicative of the character of God,
|
As a panentheist, I don't think god has a character. But "He" is
depicted as having a character in most revealed religions. In the
Hebrew Bible, YHVH is portrayed as the ultimate faithful covenanter,
but in the Psalms and elsewhere, it is clear that YHVH has not been
covenant-faithful.
| Quote: | which is what I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in the
OT.
|
It's surely indicative of the character of those who need and
believe in such a god - brutal co-dependence, tragically for no good
reason at all. What a waste of life and belief - what do they get out
of it, other than the "privilege" of being controlled by a cosmic
wife-beater? It's bad enough that they inflict these wounds on
themselves - but in the case of monotheism, they want to foist their
superstitions and sadomasochistic theology on the world.
| Quote: | [snipped]
We can agree to disagree, then. I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
I can certianly live with agreeing to disagree. I don't think a true god
*needs* it, but it establishs some acknowledgement of the reality of things.
Basically, speaking, of course.
|
Ok
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:sruc20pi05dig0gducecb5h9bsm51ujnev@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:24:33 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:2ipb20hnguav5ug3vso0tqtqpu668fhgvs@4ax.com...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
[snipped massively]
The Israelites are repeatedly warned that other nations will destroy
them,
and they will lose their lands and so on. The Exiles are the result of
that.
These warnings came via the prophets, the only difference being is the
target of that wrath. So, while I agree that there is more of a
merciful
element in the prophets, there is also an element of brutality to them
and
to God's warnings to them.
I take a somewhat softer view - I think that some prophets were
saying not what would happen, or must happen - but rather what would
likely happen IF the prophetic message went unheeded. There's an
implied threat there, but also an implied promise. Just as with
JBap's "prophecy" where unrepentants would be uprooted UNLESS they
opened to the coming Kingdom, or Jesus' prediction that society would
crumble IF the Kingdom was not acted upon.
I think there are many instances where, as you say, prophetic threats of
destruction have been balanced with promises of something. However, that
implied threat has some reality to it: in three instances that I can
think
of just from memory, God acted on it:
At least, they _believed_ that god acted on it - which to me is at
least as disturbing as god doing it. "Making sense" of catastrophe by
interpreting it as divine punishment actually makes no sense - and it
shames both the believer and the god that is believed-in.
|
What you say has merit, and opens a whole new range of questions. Those
people accepted that God gave them some degree of revelation, (through
prophets, etc). If that revelation is false, then how do we indeed know God
at all? Is it even possible? How can we know the Demiurge? Is the OT canon a
valid indicator for the Demiurge?
| Quote: |
1. The Egyptian Plagues
2. The exile of Israel
3. The exile of Judah
This is not to mention the examples where God killed off a few of the
Israelites in smaller scale "sprees".
This would indicate that none of the brutality has been lost, as God is
more
than willing to carry it out. It would seem that he would not be
bluffing.
Since I don't believe in a supernatural/interventionist god, I don't
believe that god threatens and/or carries out punishments or promises
and dispenses rewards. To me, the root problem isn't god doing these
things, but people's insistence on god doing such things.
I think this is rather indicative of the character of God,
As a panentheist, I don't think god has a character. But "He" is
depicted as having a character in most revealed religions. In the
Hebrew Bible, YHVH is portrayed as the ultimate faithful covenanter,
but in the Psalms and elsewhere, it is clear that YHVH has not been
covenant-faithful.
|
I think this is the main area where our views would diverge, in the sesne
that I do believe that YHWH has character and personality. Whether that
equates to the True God, that is an issue I am still working through. And
whether that True God has character, I am also still working through it,
though I am leaning towards the "He does" answer.
If anything, I think that there is a character to the true God. In
Gnosticism, if He didn't have personality, why would he care about us? Why
do something to save the sparks of the divine? Even self-preservation, (if
you take a more cynical track), indicates there is some personality, even of
a most primitive kind. If we are really our sparks of the divine, (if these
are really our "true" selves), then the fact that the Unknowable Father has
done something to draw us back to Himself indicates more powerfully a
personality.
| Quote: | which is what I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in the
OT.
It's surely indicative of the character of those who need and
believe in such a god - brutal co-dependence, tragically for no good
reason at all. What a waste of life and belief - what do they get out
of it, other than the "privilege" of being controlled by a cosmic
wife-beater? It's bad enough that they inflict these wounds on
themselves - but in the case of monotheism, they want to foist their
superstitions and sadomasochistic theology on the world.
|
At the moment, I am raising similar questions myself in this area. I would
hazard to guess, from a fairly different angle to the one you come from.
The only time it is a waste is if it is not true. I think it is more tragic
that it is true and there is no perceived way out. I think that is where
Gnosticism takes a radical stance and goes a long way to have some merit.
For example, a mainstream Christian will try to overcome the way of the
world, and try to see suffering in a more positive light. Ideas like "our
suffering increases our holiness" and other bullshit like that. Gnosticism
transcends this fantasy, and just calls the shots as they: this world sucks
and is life is no picnic. To me, a much more honest approach to what is a
shitty world.
Anyway, that's my rant for the evening. As always, a pleasure exchanging
thoughts with you.
Peace to you,
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:44 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
penitent leper wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
As you said, mind seems to function outside the "space-time" realm that the
body occupies. Having said that, we have minds which seem to be beyond
theories that show where we evolved from. Where did "mind" come from? How
did it "evolve"? If one holds that mind is simply the firing of neurons in
the brain, then possibly mind can evolve. However, this would put mind on a
purely physical level. Hence, when the "brain" stops, so does the mind.
Exactly the consensus materialist position. A hyletic explanation
of concsiousness which seems the simplest, if not the best. It's so
easy to account for a body-dependent consciousness than vice-versa.
Materialists ask where spirit "comes from" if not from neuro activity.
Ultimately, I don't think this can be answered even from their POV -
if spirit comes from brain, then where did the brain "come from"?
|
On this issue, sometimes panpsychism is evoked as an answer. Some
scientists in previous centuries, during the enlightenment, held this
view. In the 1800's you had adherents. I think Whitehead perhaps
suggested this view in the early 1900's, he is associated with some sort
of process theory and pan-something views.
Panpsychism, relies on a chain of logic (that I'll reconstruct from my
own understanding of the line of thinking)
1. There is the material universe we see feel touch, and experience,
observe. Its matter and energy exists.
2. We sense and observe, and think about the material universe,
therefore some degree of consciousness exists in us.
3. We exist within the material universe.
4. Therefore some degree of consciousness can be found within the
material universe.
5. Before the appearance of us or any other conscious organisms in the
universe, consciousness was still a potential of matter and energy.
6. As scientists, you shouldn't claim anything theological as scientific
7. Therefore the scientific answer is that the material universe of
matter and energy always had, as a potential, the development of
consciousness.
8. Either philosophically, or as a scientific hypothesis, we can then
state as a reasonable conclusion that some degree of consciousness
exists in every manifestation of matter or energy within the material
universe, and this explains the potential and its development and
manifestation.
9. We can speculate about degrees and types of consciousness, within
any phenomenon in the universe.
| Quote: | I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
|
It seems to me that praise and worship may have more to do with tapping
into spiritual attitudes and attributes, increasing certain spiritual
connections. One of the Aeons of the Valentinians was Ainous or
Aeonous, which is often translated as Praise (although I like Aion +
Nous, interpreted as ever + mindful)
Some worship has servile needless guilt involved, but there are other
forms. Rites to enter a more spiritual mindset could be called Worship,
but don't have to have a debasing attitude. Sincere spiritual practice
could be seen as worship. Or maybe that would be the wrong word for it. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 11:45 am Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
Mouldy Jester wrote:
| Quote: | This is not to mention the examples where God killed off a few of the
Israelites in smaller scale "sprees".
This would indicate that none of the brutality has been lost, as God is more
than willing to carry it out. It would seem that he would not be bluffing.
I think this is rather indicative of the character of God, which is what I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in the
OT.
|
It raises the question, does this reflect the nature of a particular
metaphysical entity, or merely the opinions of humans dealing with thier
national history, or allegory? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:44:30 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
| Quote: | penitent leper wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
As you said, mind seems to function outside the "space-time" realm that the
body occupies. Having said that, we have minds which seem to be beyond
theories that show where we evolved from. Where did "mind" come from? How
did it "evolve"? If one holds that mind is simply the firing of neurons in
the brain, then possibly mind can evolve. However, this would put mind on a
purely physical level. Hence, when the "brain" stops, so does the mind.
Exactly the consensus materialist position. A hyletic explanation
of concsiousness which seems the simplest, if not the best. It's so
easy to account for a body-dependent consciousness than vice-versa.
Materialists ask where spirit "comes from" if not from neuro activity.
Ultimately, I don't think this can be answered even from their POV -
if spirit comes from brain, then where did the brain "come from"?
On this issue, sometimes panpsychism is evoked as an answer. Some
scientists in previous centuries, during the enlightenment, held this
view. In the 1800's you had adherents. I think Whitehead perhaps
suggested this view in the early 1900's, he is associated with some sort
of process theory and pan-something views.
Panpsychism, relies on a chain of logic (that I'll reconstruct from my
own understanding of the line of thinking)
1. There is the material universe we see feel touch, and experience,
observe. Its matter and energy exists.
2. We sense and observe, and think about the material universe,
therefore some degree of consciousness exists in us.
3. We exist within the material universe.
4. Therefore some degree of consciousness can be found within the
material universe.
5. Before the appearance of us or any other conscious organisms in the
universe, consciousness was still a potential of matter and energy.
6. As scientists, you shouldn't claim anything theological as scientific
7. Therefore the scientific answer is that the material universe of
matter and energy always had, as a potential, the development of
consciousness.
8. Either philosophically, or as a scientific hypothesis, we can then
state as a reasonable conclusion that some degree of consciousness
exists in every manifestation of matter or energy within the material
universe, and this explains the potential and its development and
manifestation.
9. We can speculate about degrees and types of consciousness, within
any phenomenon in the universe.
|
Thank you for this overview of panpsychism. Some of it seems
similar to Teilhard de Chardin's views, which posited a "Within of
things" as well as their surface/"without". TdC thought that
consciousness was a potential of universal matter and was always
waiting to "break through" when appropriate conditions evolved.
| Quote: | I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
It seems to me that praise and worship may have more to do with tapping
into spiritual attitudes and attributes, increasing certain spiritual
connections. One of the Aeons of the Valentinians was Ainous or
Aeonous, which is often translated as Praise (although I like Aion +
Nous, interpreted as ever + mindful)
|
Ok, good point.
| Quote: | Some worship has servile needless guilt involved, but there are other
forms. Rites to enter a more spiritual mindset could be called Worship,
but don't have to have a debasing attitude. Sincere spiritual practice
could be seen as worship. Or maybe that would be the wrong word for it.
|
If worship can be seen as reverence, then even nontheistic religions
"worship" - e.g., the reverence of the Zen ceremonial, the reverent
practice of mindfulness in other forms of Buddhism, and even some of
the insight practices Pagels attributes to certain Gnostics.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
penitent leper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:31:55 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
size snip |
| Quote: | At least, they _believed_ that god acted on it - which to me is at
least as disturbing as god doing it. "Making sense" of catastrophe by
interpreting it as divine punishment actually makes no sense - and it
shames both the believer and the god that is believed-in.
What you say has merit, and opens a whole new range of questions. Those
people accepted that God gave them some degree of revelation, (through
prophets, etc). If that revelation is false, then how do we indeed know God
at all? Is it even possible?
|
Yeah, that would be a huge problem. I try to escape it by
approaching it from "below" - that "revelation" is really the human
response to sacred experience. As such it is both valuable and
flawed, of course.
| Quote: | How can we know the Demiurge? Is the OT canon a
valid indicator for the Demiurge?
|
With Jung I think the demiurge is a theological projection and
metaphor for the unenlightened ego. To the extent that the Hebrew
YHVH acts like an unenlightened ego, He is demiurgic, whether or not
he has any external existence. Of course, most religions do contain
demiurgic gods, goddesses, elementals, etc. - the worst of YHVH is
only part of the larger picture. I don't think the entire Hebrew
Bible canon is demiurgic, especially the parts that disidentify god
with militant nationalism, which endorse care for the poor, sick, and
widowed, and which promote a heart rooted in Spirit rather than in
culture.
snip
| Quote: | Since I don't believe in a supernatural/interventionist god, I don't
believe that god threatens and/or carries out punishments or promises
and dispenses rewards. To me, the root problem isn't god doing these
things, but people's insistence on god doing such things.
I think this is rather indicative of the character of God,
As a panentheist, I don't think god has a character. But "He" is
depicted as having a character in most revealed religions. In the
Hebrew Bible, YHVH is portrayed as the ultimate faithful covenanter,
but in the Psalms and elsewhere, it is clear that YHVH has not been
covenant-faithful.
I think this is the main area where our views would diverge, in the sesne
that I do believe that YHWH has character and personality. Whether that
equates to the True God, that is an issue I am still working through. And
whether that True God has character, I am also still working through it,
though I am leaning towards the "He does" answer.
|
He used to be my god without qualification. Then the
qualification(s) modified not him, but my image of him. I found the
YHVH of the progressive prophets, of the wonder workers, of the kindly
rabbis, of Jesus and Gameliel, of the mystical kabbalists. I guess
the issue comes down to the correctness of my process of selecting
among Israel's god-images - I am encouraged that Israel itself did
such selecting.
If it's not too personal, why do you feel that you have investment
in this god...? I know it's debated, especially in this group,
but:...
IF Jesus' god was the Hebrew god - yes, possibly a big If - then
couldn't you adopt a "Jesus-ist" view of that god? Just as Jesus
softened that god's contours and modified "his commandments given by
Moses", couldn't you do the same and thereby let yourself off the
torturous hook...? Not trying to simplify or trivialize your dilemma
- just curious.
| Quote: | If anything, I think that there is a character to the true God. In
Gnosticism, if He didn't have personality, why would he care about us? Why
do something to save the sparks of the divine? Even self-preservation, (if
you take a more cynical track), indicates there is some personality, even of
a most primitive kind. If we are really our sparks of the divine, (if these
are really our "true" selves), then the fact that the Unknowable Father has
done something to draw us back to Himself indicates more powerfully a
personality.
|
Could be, I don't see why an Alien God, a Godhead, a God beyond God,
could not also manifest personally to persons. As you say, some
Gnostic texts show some personality in the True God. That, I guess
would be his immanent ("here") aspect, whereas Gnostic titles such as
Manda d'Hayye, the Profundity, the Abyss, etc., would be his
transcendent ("there") aspect.
| Quote: | which is what I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in the
OT.
It's surely indicative of the character of those who need and
believe in such a god - brutal co-dependence, tragically for no good
reason at all. What a waste of life and belief - what do they get out
of it, other than the "privilege" of being controlled by a cosmic
wife-beater? It's bad enough that they inflict these wounds on
themselves - but in the case of monotheism, they want to foist their
superstitions and sadomasochistic theology on the world.
At the moment, I am raising similar questions myself in this area. I would
hazard to guess, from a fairly different angle to the one you come from.
|
Ok
| Quote: | The only time it is a waste is if it is not true. I think it is more tragic
that it is true and there is no perceived way out. I think that is where
Gnosticism takes a radical stance and goes a long way to have some merit.
For example, a mainstream Christian will try to overcome the way of the
world, and try to see suffering in a more positive light. Ideas like "our
suffering increases our holiness" and other bullshit like that.
|
Yep, that's a question I raised in another post re: Gibson's "The
Passion". Raised RCC, I am all too familiar with the "wounded
carnality" of Jesus' sufferings, sacrifice, and death. I don't see
suffering as positive, except in a stern but righteous self-directed
fascism - grit your teeth and bear it, it builds character, etc. I
suppose it can serve to temper one to endure...further suffering!
Great, huh?
| Quote: | Gnosticism
transcends this fantasy, and just calls the shots as they: this world sucks
and is life is no picnic. To me, a much more honest approach to what is a
shitty world.
|
Absolutely right, and very few want to hear it.
| Quote: | Anyway, that's my rant for the evening. As always, a pleasure exchanging
thoughts with you.
|
Ditto - I enjoy your style, honesty, and sharpness.
- pl - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Carlcat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:02 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
Mouldy Jester wrote:
| Quote: | "Carlcat" <booboo@booboo.net> wrote in message
news:ukiVb.28246$EH5.19077@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Ok, so God is transcendent, though immediate to you in some way, and not
related to matter, not related to the laws of this universe, and not
involved in creating or interventionist activity. Sounds similar to
Marcion without refering to the Old Testament God as a metaphysical
entity. Even if the Demiurge is an ALLEGORY of the laws of nature and
the processes of evolution, if you identify with the stories told about
the Demiurge as relevant to our own ego consciousnesses in our psyche's,
and the way the world works ignorantly, personified, then it sounds like
you are Gnostic enough in affirming that the True God is NOT creator or
ruler of this world. That is a KEY insight that neither panethiests nor
traditional theists make, but that Gnostics did make, and one that
atheists do not consider since they deny any sort of God.
Goooood point!
|
I'm glad I discovered this point, myself. It came out differently than
I usually think of it.
| Quote: | It is often stated that limiting God's power or realm of influence
absolves God from not intervening, i.e., God CAN'T intervene, or at
least, most of the time, for reasons we may or may not wish to theorize
about.
This is something that has me a little worried in my own thinking.
|
To me, it answers such worries by saying: my worries beg the question.
If God is limited in THIS world, but we have a spirit that by its nature
goes back to God where God is NOT limited, or a soul that by receiving
Spirit can be transformed and escape the limitations of the
psychic/hylic realms, then ok we aren't expecting a change in this
world, but we can hope that God will give us spiritual power, or that
maybe our pysche/soul can be trasnformed in some way by spiritual
influence (depending on our outlook on this)... in either case, God
intervenes in things of Spirit, so we can focus there, and have no
reason to doubt God's good intentions, we just acknowledge this world
isn't run by God.
If we
| Quote: | accept the Biblical account, and accept that God knows a lot more than us,
(I think in Isaiah somewhere, God claims that His ways are higher than ours
and His thoughts are higher), then this has serious implications for our own
ideas.
|
Well, it could imply that God is MORE merciful than we can imagine, MORE
good, MORE than fair, etc., than we experience here in this world, in
our human understanding. Why ignore that to posit the opposite? If
Spiritual Fruit comes from God, and consists of patience, peace, mercy,
compassion, etc., then why expect the opposite to be in God? The
opposite comes from the humans who wrote things down, who speculated,
and who misunderstood, or from other things besides God. This is true
in scripture, in people, in the invisible realms, etc. That is how to
find the Spiritual within any teaching, any scripture, any teachings on God.
| Quote: | For example, God didn't intervene to stop the deaths of millions of Jewish
people throughout the centuries. He let them die some pretty horrible deaths
at the hands of others, and these same Jews are supposed to be His "chosen".
Why would he do nothing?? Maybe there was a purpose or a "greater good" that
we can have no idea about? As insane as it may seem to us?
|
Maybe Satan is the ruler of this world, as Paul indicates. In any case,
even the Demiurge may just be up in some distant cosmic realm, below the
True God, and yet above this world as run by Satan. Maybe archons
(rulers, principalities, and powers) act independent and in contrary
ways to Satan furthre complicating the picture.
God simply doesn't call all the shots here, is why Paul says some of the
things he does, and it's why Satan offered Jesus rulership over all the
kingdoms, and it's why Jesus is said to have told Pilate that his
kingdom is NOT of this world.
It all starts adding up, for me. Miracles can and do happen, here, when
and if we receive a Spirit, have a Spirit, or develop our Spirit, and
then act in ways that are synchronized among similar people who are
Spiritual in some capacity, to arrange things for the better. That
could explain much Spiritual phenomenon. Commanding demons OUT of
people through spiritual power that transcends the Psychic realm, also
explains some things. Being able to baffle demons or other pychic realm
phenomenon, or to heal the psyche through KNOWING the rules of
operations in these lower realms and pulling strings, can also explain
some miracles.
Yet in many cases, the rules are difficult or impossible to manage to
our benefit, for any Spiritual reality.
Spirit/The Good has the final say ON Spirit/The Good, in realms that ARE
Spiritual/associated with The Good.
Here, Spirit can still operate through superior KNOWLEDGE and
TRANSCENDENCE. How this does or does not effect psyche, and hence
cosmic realities underlying the order and rule of the natural world and
natural/mental/emotional phenomenon, is a big topic.
| Quote: | That sounds pretty Gnostic to me, although in all fairness some
Buddhists might say the same thing, and many Buddhists as well as
Gnostics affirm value in recognizing their differences. Show me a
Buddhist that is 'pessimistic' enough, and well, if he walks like a
Gnostic, water rolls off his back like a Gnostic, and he quacks like a
Gnostic, then he's a duck.
Interesting. A duck. There you go, Penitent, you're a "duck"....
|
Maybe, but are ducks Gnostic, then, or just pessimistic Buddhists?
I like to say it's not that the glass is half empty,
I admit the glass is half full....
of piss |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:53 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:oc8e20hlesaqqiqpul1rjr4gufb2dagha7@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 05:44:30 GMT, Carlcat <booboo@booboo.net> wrote:
penitent leper wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:43:52 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
As you said, mind seems to function outside the "space-time" realm that
the
body occupies. Having said that, we have minds which seem to be beyond
theories that show where we evolved from. Where did "mind" come from?
How
did it "evolve"? If one holds that mind is simply the firing of neurons
in
the brain, then possibly mind can evolve. However, this would put mind
on a
purely physical level. Hence, when the "brain" stops, so does the mind.
Exactly the consensus materialist position. A hyletic explanation
of concsiousness which seems the simplest, if not the best. It's so
easy to account for a body-dependent consciousness than vice-versa.
Materialists ask where spirit "comes from" if not from neuro activity.
Ultimately, I don't think this can be answered even from their POV -
if spirit comes from brain, then where did the brain "come from"?
On this issue, sometimes panpsychism is evoked as an answer. Some
scientists in previous centuries, during the enlightenment, held this
view. In the 1800's you had adherents. I think Whitehead perhaps
suggested this view in the early 1900's, he is associated with some sort
of process theory and pan-something views.
Panpsychism, relies on a chain of logic (that I'll reconstruct from my
own understanding of the line of thinking)
1. There is the material universe we see feel touch, and experience,
observe. Its matter and energy exists.
2. We sense and observe, and think about the material universe,
therefore some degree of consciousness exists in us.
3. We exist within the material universe.
4. Therefore some degree of consciousness can be found within the
material universe.
5. Before the appearance of us or any other conscious organisms in the
universe, consciousness was still a potential of matter and energy.
6. As scientists, you shouldn't claim anything theological as scientific
7. Therefore the scientific answer is that the material universe of
matter and energy always had, as a potential, the development of
consciousness.
8. Either philosophically, or as a scientific hypothesis, we can then
state as a reasonable conclusion that some degree of consciousness
exists in every manifestation of matter or energy within the material
universe, and this explains the potential and its development and
manifestation.
9. We can speculate about degrees and types of consciousness, within
any phenomenon in the universe.
Thank you for this overview of panpsychism. Some of it seems
similar to Teilhard de Chardin's views, which posited a "Within of
things" as well as their surface/"without". TdC thought that
consciousness was a potential of universal matter and was always
waiting to "break through" when appropriate conditions evolved.
I just can not imagine what a true
god would do with praise and worship. It could be argued that it's
the worshiper who benefits, but I don't see how...
It seems to me that praise and worship may have more to do with tapping
into spiritual attitudes and attributes, increasing certain spiritual
connections. One of the Aeons of the Valentinians was Ainous or
Aeonous, which is often translated as Praise (although I like Aion +
Nous, interpreted as ever + mindful)
Ok, good point.
Some worship has servile needless guilt involved, but there are other
forms. Rites to enter a more spiritual mindset could be called Worship,
but don't have to have a debasing attitude. Sincere spiritual practice
could be seen as worship. Or maybe that would be the wrong word for it.
If worship can be seen as reverence, then even nontheistic religions
"worship" - e.g., the reverence of the Zen ceremonial, the reverent
practice of mindfulness in other forms of Buddhism, and even some of
the insight practices Pagels attributes to certain Gnostics.
|
With this last point, I would totally agree with you. In the Elder Troth,
(which worships the old Norse gods and goddesses), there is a definite
attitude of refusing to debase oneself before them. All ritual and prayer is
performed standing up with pride. I think Carlcat is entirely correct that
some worship is servile, but it is not a nessecary property of worship.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"Carlcat" <booboo@booboo.net> wrote in message
news:o8FVb.29848$CE5.16272@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
| Quote: | Mouldy Jester wrote:
This is not to mention the examples where God killed off a few of the
Israelites in smaller scale "sprees".
This would indicate that none of the brutality has been lost, as God is
more
than willing to carry it out. It would seem that he would not be
bluffing.
I think this is rather indicative of the character of God, which is what
I
think I am more worried about. The overall tendency that God shows in
the
OT.
It raises the question, does this reflect the nature of a particular
metaphysical entity, or merely the opinions of humans dealing with thier
national history, or allegory?
|
I would hazard to say that there are elements of all of them there,
depending on what you are looking at. I would also suggest that they are not
always discrete sections.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
news:kk8e20h96ec4tvk1cpsu14eqn3q2vnun8o@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 17:31:55 +1300, "Mouldy Jester" <Noway@getlost.com
wrote:
"penitent leper" <bastaschs@peak.org> wrote in message
size snip
[snipped] |
| Quote: | What you say has merit, and opens a whole new range of questions. Those
people accepted that God gave them some degree of revelation, (through
prophets, etc). If that revelation is false, then how do we indeed know
God
at all? Is it even possible?
Yeah, that would be a huge problem. I try to escape it by
approaching it from "below" - that "revelation" is really the human
response to sacred experience. As such it is both valuable and
flawed, of course.
|
I would possibly suggest that the "sacred experience" is, in itself, a
revelatory event. To experience the sacred, the sacred must to some extent
reveal itself to you.
| Quote: | How can we know the Demiurge? Is the OT canon a
valid indicator for the Demiurge?
With Jung I think the demiurge is a theological projection and
metaphor for the unenlightened ego. To the extent that the Hebrew
YHVH acts like an unenlightened ego, He is demiurgic, whether or not
he has any external existence. Of course, most religions do contain
demiurgic gods, goddesses, elementals, etc. - the worst of YHVH is
only part of the larger picture. I don't think the entire Hebrew
Bible canon is demiurgic, especially the parts that disidentify god
with militant nationalism, which endorse care for the poor, sick, and
widowed, and which promote a heart rooted in Spirit rather than in
culture.
|
I would still hold to the more traditional Gnostic idea of Yaldaboath as a
sentient, living being. However, I also agree that that being is steeped in
ignorance, hence the vile acts that are described in the OT and the
slaughter.
However, when you think about the origins of Yaldaboath, as coming from
Sophia, who in turn ultimately came from the Ineffable Father, (albeit
distantly), there must some small, tiny element of that divinity in him.
Therefore, I am not surprised that some of his actions, ideas and commands
reflect some of the same qualities as Christ or the prophets. Can you see
what I am driving at here?
[snipped]
| Quote: |
He used to be my god without qualification. Then the
qualification(s) modified not him, but my image of him. I found the
YHVH of the progressive prophets, of the wonder workers, of the kindly
rabbis, of Jesus and Gameliel, of the mystical kabbalists. I guess
the issue comes down to the correctness of my process of selecting
among Israel's god-images - I am encouraged that Israel itself did
such selecting.
If it's not too personal, why do you feel that you have investment
in this god...? I know it's debated, especially in this group,
but:...
IF Jesus' god was the Hebrew god - yes, possibly a big If - then
couldn't you adopt a "Jesus-ist" view of that god? Just as Jesus
softened that god's contours and modified "his commandments given by
Moses", couldn't you do the same and thereby let yourself off the
torturous hook...? Not trying to simplify or trivialize your dilemma
- just curious.
|
After many years as an atheist and then a mainstream Christian, I have spent
a lot of time accepting that the God of Christ was indeed YHWH of the
Israelites.
There is much in the NT and OT that just doesn't fit together. I can't
remember where, but in both the OT and NT, (I am sure both), there are
passages that say that God never changes in His character. This presents a
major hurdle for me.
I wish to know what the true God is, and also what he is not. The actions of
both YHWH and Christ's God exhibit attributes of character, and the ancient
Christian Gnostics understood them as such. I have seen no reasonable cause
to diverge from the path set out by the likes of Valentinus and company.
| Quote: | If anything, I think that there is a character to the true God. In
Gnosticism, if He didn't have personality, why would he care about us?
Why
do something to save the sparks of the divine? Even self-preservation,
(if
you take a more cynical track), indicates there is some personality, even
of
a most primitive kind. If we are really our sparks of the divine, (if
these
are really our "true" selves), then the fact that the Unknowable Father
has
done something to draw us back to Himself indicates more powerfully a
personality.
Could be, I don't see why an Alien God, a Godhead, a God beyond God,
could not also manifest personally to persons. As you say, some
Gnostic texts show some personality in the True God. That, I guess
would be his immanent ("here") aspect, whereas Gnostic titles such as
Manda d'Hayye, the Profundity, the Abyss, etc., would be his
transcendent ("there") aspect.
|
Ok
[snipped]
| Quote: |
For example, a mainstream Christian will try to overcome the way of the
world, and try to see suffering in a more positive light. Ideas like "our
suffering increases our holiness" and other bullshit like that.
Yep, that's a question I raised in another post re: Gibson's "The
Passion". Raised RCC, I am all too familiar with the "wounded
carnality" of Jesus' sufferings, sacrifice, and death. I don't see
suffering as positive, except in a stern but righteous self-directed
fascism - grit your teeth and bear it, it builds character, etc. I
suppose it can serve to temper one to endure...further suffering!
Great, huh?
|
Oh yeah, a very positive image! I think there is an element of suffering in
Gnosticism, especially the more ascetically inclined schools. However, there
is a completely different slant to the suffering and its purposes.
Once, peace to you.
--
Mouldy Jester
"I keep telling you, Gnosticism ain't dualistic."
-- Krag, (30th July, 2003) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: (OT) Spirituality and Historical Events |
|
|
"Carlcat" <booboo@booboo.net> wrote in message
news:sg | |
