Christianity

[Age]

Dontaskme wrote:

“But you would not understand what you were looking at without analysis. It works both ways. Reality is like a two way mirror.”

owl of Minerva:

You are missing the point. You are hung up on analysis. There are two ways of knowing: insight; revelation, revealed truth which could be by a prophet or by the Oracle at Delphi. If it needs to be analyzed to be understood, then insight is missing.

Well then, OBVIOUSLY, if 'insight' is missing, then the so-called "prophets" or the so-called "oracle at delphi" are NOT providing thee actual 'insights' in their sayings or metaphors.

Also, 'revealed truth' can be REVEALED and/or SEEN by ANY one.

With science it is knowing by thought experiments and analysis of prior views. One example is time as seen by Aristotle and Newton. Both views were modified into a third view by Einstein which lasted until Quantum Mechanics. Which in its turn will last until the next discovery. To understand what time is, in its essence, would require knowing the nature of reality. Science is not about knowing, it is about finding out in increments and that requires analysis.

Religion is different, when it is analyzed as theology it becomes a study of reality, not insight into the nature of reality, which is what religion is in its essence.

If this were True, then WHY can 'religion' NOT 'reveal insights', to 'you', adult human beings?

By the way, the 'nature of reality' is ALREADY KNOWN, and this came about NOT necessarily through 'science' NOR 'religion' alone, but from a process where ALL Truly 'insightful knowledge' is 'revealed' and becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR.

Unlike science analysis in religion obscures rather than enlightens.

Both ways of knowing insight and analysis are valid, and should run parallel to each other.

'Run parallel to each other' is about the most insightful knowledge that you have revealed here, for 'us'.

[Age]

...many 'hard materialists' (If indeed Uwot defines himself as such)...

Has it crossed your mind to ask uwot?

I thought you charged for questions? A man has a right to a living. But I am running short this week.

Asking uwot might be like asking the Wizard of Oz for a favor . . .

"Jiminy Crickets!"

And, it might NOT be. But you will NEVER ACTUALLY KNOW, until you ask.

WHY did the peoples 'of these days' REALLY seem to prefer to ASSUME, instead of to CLARIFY?

Thee ANSWER is VERY REVEALING and VERY INSIGHTFUL, once uncoverd.

[Age]

And, so you did not sound completely insane here, you conveniently left out that 'God', to you, is a person.

nope

What is your "nope" here in relation to, EXACTLY?

If you do NOT answer this, then your response is moot.

So your deity exists but he is not conscious, is that what you are saying?

Not at all: my God is a person.

learn to follow a thread

I was, and that is the VERY REASON I wrote what I did.

Are you now 'trying to' say that there are MANY Gods, and that YOUR God is DIFFERENT to thee God?

If no, then what are you 'trying to' say here?

OBVIOUSLY, you left out, conveniently, that your God is a person, in the post I was referring to, and if you did NOT, then you would sound completely insane, which is ALL that I was saying.

So, until you explain what your "nope" here, is in relation to, then, OBVIOUSLY, that is what you DID DO.

[Age]

By Age:


“And, if you think or BELIEVE that you have NO problem understanding metaphor "owl of minerva", then WHY NOT just write a book explaining what ALL metaphors ACTUALLY MEAN, so that the rest of humanity can understand metaphors AS WELL? “

…………………………………………………….
By owl of Minerva:

That may not be helpful.

But if you do NOT do this, then 'you', 'I', and 'us' will NEVER KNOW.

The adage ‘there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip’ is true.

This may well be true, to you, but because we do NOT YET KNOW what that even means to you, whether 'it' (whatever 'it' is) is true or not is of no real concern nor matter, to us.

You may also have heard the expression: ‘lost in translation.’

Okay.

Heraclitus said: ‘The hidden harmony is better than the obvious.’

Okay.

The harmony of the whole is lost in translation.

Which is ALREADY OBVIOUS, and WHY 'speaking in tongues', was once written. Plus many other words, and metaphors.

Or worse massacred, denounced, misrepresented or hijacked for nefarious purposes. Better to leave the pearl in the oyster. Those who find it and appreciate it will leave it there as well and not bandy it about or make a philosophical or theological conundrum out of it through analysis.

But some suggest 'pears of wisdom' are better off shared, and revealed, as their insights are VERY HELPFUL in what is about to come. And that this is MUCH BETTER than leaving those 'pearls of wisdom' hidden, or hiding, (within oysters).

But, AGAIN, each to their own.

Also, finding, or coming to, 'wisdom', and then just leaving there, behind, to some, is NOT REALLY the BEST thing to do AT ALL. But these ones do feel, and have, a sense of responsibility for ALL, and not just to their OWN 'self'. In other words, they are NOT as selfish and greedy.

[henry quirk]

you left out, conveniently, that your God is a person, in the post I was referring to

cuz the post you referred to was one in a conversation, a conversation where I'd already asserted 'my God is a person'

Here's another example...

Why would a god be like a person?

Why wouldn't He be? From the evidence: He craves order, He designs; He prizes freedom and values good. In other words: He has interests, proclivities, preferences, and the desire to see them thru. Sounds like a person to me.

See, you'd know this if you'd actually reviewed the thread and read thru my conversations with lace and owl.

[Age]

you left out, conveniently, that your God is a person, in the post I was referring to

cuz the post you referred to was one in a conversation, a conversation where I'd already asserted 'my God is a person'

But this is NOT True AT ALL.

The post I was referring to was the one in which you responded to what I wrote.

Here's another example...

Why would a god be like a person?

Why wouldn't He be? From the evidence: He craves order, He designs; He prizes freedom and values good. In other words: He has interests, proclivities, preferences, and the desire to see them thru. Sounds like a person to me.

See, you'd know this if you'd actually reviewed the thread and read thru my conversations with lace and owl.

LOOK, what can be CLEARLY SEEN is, to you, 'your' God is a person. You made this CLEAR, in the above post, right?

If this is NOT right, then what is?

Also, if a person does NOT crave order, does NOT design, does NOT prize freedom and values good, nor does the other things you say here, then is would that be 'evidence' to you, that God is NOT a person?

[henry quirk]

The post I was referring to was the one in which you responded to what I wrote.

As I reckon it: God doesn't require man's belief.

It may be, however, man requires God's.

'Man requires God's'? What do you mean?

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

So, to you, a person created man.

You exist because a person will it.

And,

A person does not need man to believe in the person, but your existence depends on a person's interest in you.

If this is not correct, then why not?

yes: God created man

yes: I exist becuz God willed it

...and...

yes: God doesn't require my interest in Him, but I require His interest in me

it's correct

Now, what's your complaint again?

[Immanuel Can]

A man who chooses that others suffer to prove how much they love him is a narcissist.

No, you've got your terms mixed up, B.

I don't know which "man" you mean, or why he "chooses that others suffer." I have no idea what "love" would have to do with that, and nothing you suggest reflects anything I suggested. So I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where to start here.

However, I think you're still hanging onto some Fatalistic idea. Or call it Deterministic, if you like. It's essentially the same.

[Dontaskme]

You are missing the point. There are two ways of knowing:

You are missing the point.

There is only one way of knowing.

...You know you do not know. The ONLY knowing there is.


Keep it simple.

[Age]

The post I was referring to was the one in which you responded to what I wrote.

'Man requires God's'? What do you mean?

God created man. We exist cuz He willed it. God, as I see it, doesn't need us to believe in Him, but our existence depends on His interest in us.

So, to you, a person created man.

You exist because a person will it.

And,

A person does not need man to believe in the person, but your existence depends on a person's interest in you.

If this is not correct, then why not?

yes: God created man

yes: I exist becuz God willed it

...and...

yes: God doesn't require my interest in Him, but I require His interest in me

it's correct

Now, what's your complaint again?

There was and still is NO complaint, AT ALL. WHY did you ASSUME or BELIEVE there was ANY complaint?

I was just POINTING OUT; that, to you -

A person created man (woman, and children)

You exist because a person willed it/you.

And,

That person , who created all of 'you', human beings, and who willed "henry quirk" into existence, does not need man (woman, nor child) to believe in them, but your existence depends on that person's interest in you.

And that you -

Had, conveniently, left out that your God is the person, in that response.

[Dontaskme]

So we can see that the Spirit is not something men have always had, or that all men have.

Man is a concept. Concepts do not have spirit. Spirit is infinite consciousness who knows concept as an imagined thing. Concepts in and of themselves, know nothing, because they have no self, autonomy, or agency, or utility.
Concepts are known only to infinite consciousness.. ONE WITHOUT A SECOND
''Death is a cosmic joke. If you get the joke, falling on the other side will be wonderful."

He is given by God, to those who have believed in Christ. And the world knows nothing about Him, since it does not regard God as even existing, nor does it listen to any but its own "spirit." No wonder, then, that Christ says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Again, one must be born again, born from above, to experience the leading of God's Spirit. It's not a universal human experience.

More Christian distortion.

The concept known as ''birth'' is to be born into falsehood, which is concept.
Only mental constructs are born..... NOT YOU.
''Death is not extinguishing the light, it is only putting out the lamp because the dawn has come." - Rabindranath Tagore

A 'Christian' is a known concept ( a mental construction) of infinite consciousness your true absolute being. Absolute being KNOWS nothing of birth and death. . except in this conception.

''birth and death'' are concepts known ( the dream world) by the only knowing there is, which is infinite consciousness, therefore, concepts such as birth and death are NEVER an actual experience.

Infinite consciousness is ALL there IS. . NEVER born, not even once, and certainly NOT twice.

''Death is a cosmic joke. If you get the joke, falling on the other side will be wonderful."

Newsflash!!...Advaita Vedanta put right the crooked distortion of Christian Theologian Mythology.

Think of it as straightening out the crooked bent out of it's original shape.

[Belinda]

A man who chooses that others suffer to prove how much they love him is a narcissist.

No, you've got your terms mixed up, B.

I don't know which "man" you mean, or why he "chooses that others suffer." I have no idea what "love" would have to do with that, and nothing you suggest reflects anything I suggested. So I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where to start here.

However, I think you're still hanging onto some Fatalistic idea. Or call it Deterministic, if you like. It's essentially the same.

Determinists are people who believe in ontic order . Some determinists claim to absolutely predict and these are charlatans or fatalists.

It is not true that God wants us to love Him despite all the suffering which He could prevent if He so chose. Either God can't intervene in His Plan or he can intervene in His Plan.

If He can't intervene in His Plan and is merciful then He is not all-powerful and that is why there is suffering.

If He can intervene in His Plan and allows suffering then He is not merciful.

There is no God Who wants there to be enormous suffering solely for the purpose of proving to Himself his creatures are wholly His . When men behave like this they are brought to justice.

[owl of Minerva]

Age wrote:

If this were True, then WHY can 'religion' NOT 'reveal insights', to 'you', adult human beings?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021
Unlike science analysis in religion obscures rather than enlightens.

owl of Minerva:

The above in my prior post answers your question. Little more can be added to that. Is predestination in religion; the idea of an elect or chosen an enlighten view? I would say not. Who elected founders of religious sects in Christianity to make pronouncements about anything. My answer: themselves. Did it come from insight or from rationalizing and wrong analysis? I would say: No, to insight and Yes to rationalizing and wrong analysis, or some motive not based on reality.

owl of Minerva: Both ways of knowing insight and analysis are valid, and should run parallel to each other.

Age:
'Run parallel to each other' is about the most insightful knowledge that you have revealed here, for 'us'.

owl of Minerva:
Thank you. Glad you agree. The only thing I would add is to leave rationalizing and analyzing to philosophy and science and in religion follow the dictum: “know thyself.”

[Immanuel Can]

A man who chooses that others suffer to prove how much they love him is a narcissist.

No, you've got your terms mixed up, B.

I don't know which "man" you mean, or why he "chooses that others suffer." I have no idea what "love" would have to do with that, and nothing you suggest reflects anything I suggested. So I'm kind of at a loss to figure out where to start here.

However, I think you're still hanging onto some Fatalistic idea. Or call it Deterministic, if you like. It's essentially the same.

Determinists are people who believe in ontic order .

No, they're not merely that. They aren't just people who believe in, say, natural laws or scientific priniciples, or whatever you mean by "ontic order." They're people who believe that some force predetermines all choices, so that human "freedom" is merely an appearance, and human beings are not themselves active contributors to cause-effect relations.

It's an absolute position. Any "choice," any genuine "human freedom," by existing falsifies Determinism. There can be no such things in the universe, according to their theory.

But nobody is saying anything about prediction when they become a Determinist. Most Determinists say that the material-causal factors involved are simply too complex for calculation. But you're right that in principle, if the calculation could be done, they think prediction would then be possible. Material cause and effect, they think, would ultimately account for every movement in the universe.

Either God can't intervene in His Plan or he can intervene in His Plan.

He can, obviously.

If He can't intervene in His Plan and is merciful then He is not all-powerful and that is why there is suffering.

He is powerful enough to prevent it, if preventing it would not also prevent us from being free individuals...which it would. So it's not a question of "power" but rather of the coherence of the objection. One cannot have "predetermined free" individuals. There are no such entities, just as there are no square circles.

If He can intervene in His Plan and allows suffering then He is not merciful.

This also does not follow. All God has to do, in order to vindicate His dealings, is to have sufficient reason to allow some suffering in the world. If He has sufficient reason, then it's better for God to allow some suffering than for Him to prevent all of it.

Does God have such sufficient reason? Yes, I would say He does. The surpassing value of creating free individuals is plausibly worth the cost; that cost being that some of them will choose to do the wrong things, or to reject even God Himself, and will create suffering thereby. But since some do not do that, and instead establish an eternal, free, individually-chosen relationship with God, then that very plausibly could have surpassing value.

[henry quirk]

There was and still is NO complaint, AT ALL.

Then we're square: