Perspective

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:09 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:36 am
It’s not about ideas or who said what, but the ideals I am drawn to by experience. The listed perspectives are images meant to figuratively convey to others what is sensed on a deeply personal level. There is nothing to debate or challenge.
  • 1. Ideals are impossibilities in reality
    2. The idea of god is an ideal
    3. God is an impossibility in reality.
No issue if one keep and confine such a god as a fantasy on a personal and private basis. It would be better if one can wean off such fantasizing [dummy].

Note this;
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:28 am

-1-:
I completely fail to see how all this incomprehensibility you managed to put on paper is NOT in agreement with the following:

- god can be and not be in herself at the same time and in the same respect
- god is a circle
- god is impotent
- god does not exist
Because Caputo is not interested in assertions about what God is. His interest is in response to a calling. He is called upon. His concern is with what he feels called to do, and this has nothing to do with ritual or worship but with service to man, which he sees as service to God.
- there is at least one way in which John D. Caputo does not approach god.
There are many ways in which Caputo does not approach god. Those ways include most of what we find in theology.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:30 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:59 am

Reflex makes sense to me. The circle he describes I know of as the Ouroboros: "a circular symbol depicting a snake, or less commonly a dragon, swallowing its tail, as an emblem of wholeness or infinity." Our difference is that for me the ouroboros is not NOW but exists within NOW.
Not much of a difference IMO. The symbol (the head swallowing its tail) seems to me to correlate with Convergence.
fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:28 am

Because Caputo is not interested in assertions about what God is. His interest is in response to a calling. He is called upon. His concern is with what he feels called to do, and this has nothing to do with ritual or worship but with service to man, which he sees as service to God.
Exactly. Even if there is a real difference between my perceptions and Nick's, each is born of the relating of a relation.
Last edited by Reflex on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:40 am

Reflex:
It’s not about ideas or who said what, but the ideals I am drawn to by experience. The listed perspectives are images meant to figuratively convey to others what is sensed on a deeply personal level. There is nothing to debate or challenge.
So the point was to simply inform us of ideals you are drawn to and what you sense on a personal level? You declare the very ideas you put forth as out of bounds.

I trust that I am not alone in thinking a philosophy forum is about the examination and discussion of ideas, opinions, beliefs, and ideals.

I see I was mistaken in thinking you were interested in discussing what Caputo says and means. I wonder what his reaction would be to referencing him and then declaring it is not about his ideas and what he said.

Nick_A
Posts: 4257
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Nick_A » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:01 am

Reflex
Not much of a difference IMO. The symbol (the head swallowing its tail) seems to me to correlate with Convergence.
It was a real mind blowing experience for me when I began to realize that the cycles of material convergence was known as the breath of Brahma and a kalpa in Buddhism. Apparently the ouroboros or universe is created, eats itself, and returns to its source. Then it is created again.
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:12 am

fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:40 am

I trust that I am not alone in thinking a philosophy forum is about the examination and discussion of ideas, opinions, beliefs, and ideals.

I see I was mistaken in thinking you were interested in discussing what Caputo says and means. I wonder what his reaction would be to referencing him and then declaring it is not about his ideas and what he said.
Yes, you were mistaken. I thought I made that clear when I said, "The relating is everything: concepts and ideas pertaining to God are all but irrelevant."

Philosophy is about wisdom, not argument. You are free to examine and discuss the symbols I use to convey my felt relation, but not the relation itself.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:33 am

I have read a review on Caputo's Weakness of God
http://www.jcrt.org/archives/07.2/heltzel.pdf
Review of Caputo's Weakness of God by
PETER GOODWIN HELTZEL is Assistant Professor of Theology at New York
Theological Seminary.

With a liturgical cadence of conversation, prayer and then silence, The
Weakness of God reads like the pensive meditations of a devoted monk, full of
reverence, love and imagination. Whether God is strong or weak or both,
theologians, weak and strong, can and should join together in the struggle for
love and justice. God has called. The Kingdom has called. Caputo has heard
the call and his theology is an embodiment of the event of justice. In this way
he honors his father, mother and friend(s). If only we can too.
My take on the above is this;

The idea of God emerged from psychology, i.e. existential crisis inherent in humans.
Then the idea of God naturally progresses from weak [primitive] to very strong.
However the strong God has since faced a continual onslaught of attacks from the skeptics and rationalists.
Because God is based on faith and psychology, it cannot stand up to reason and need for proofs.
With each wave of attacks theologians has to deflect from the strong [omnipotent substance] to a weaker and weaker god of merely a weak essence as in Weak Theology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmoder ... k_theology

What is left with Weak Theology is merely a call from God.

My interpretation is this 'call' is actually the compulsive impulses of the existential crisis and this boils down to psychology. The impulses of the existential crisis compel one to act subliminally and this is interpret as a call from God by theists a Weak God.
If those of Weak Theology can get to and understand their "call" is purely their own psychology, then one can began to manage these impulses, i.e. impulse control.

What is so glaring is those involve in theism are so blind to the possibility that theism is solely related to what is going inside their brain. Instead of looking outward all the time, theists should pause and take a look at what is going on inside their brain.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:35 am

VA,

Everything you've said in the past or ever will say is solely related to what is going inside your brain. Instead of looking to the turbulence generated by preconceived ideas, you should pause and listen to what's going on with the whole self.

Like fooloso4, you are free to examine and discuss the symbols I use to convey my felt relation, but not the relation itself. F4 is right about this being a philosophy forum, but this particular forum the philosophy of religion forum. Statements like:
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)
are commonplace. No one can tell you exactly what this means -- it's arational but not irrational. If you find statements like this to be meaningless, then the problem lies with you, your psychology.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:54 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:35 am
VA,

Everything you've said in the past or ever will say is solely related to what is going inside your brain. Instead of looking to the turbulence generated by preconceived ideas, you should pause and listen to what's going on with the whole self.

Like fooloso4, you are free to examine and discuss the symbols I use to convey my felt relation, but not the relation itself. F4 is right about this being a philosophy forum, but this particular forum the philosophy of religion forum.

Statements like:
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)
are commonplace. No one can tell you exactly what this means -- it's arational but not irrational. If you find statements like this to be meaningless, then the problem lies with you, your psychology.
When I said 'brain' in this case it implies the whole self or system interacting with the whole universe.
When I refer to the existential crisis, it is not only 'yours' but the impulses also arise from the 6 pounds of good bacteria [in your body] and their existential concerns.

Whatever is written in the holy books is directed from and conditioned to the existential crisis. What is written and expressed are meant to soothe the disturbed soul.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:06 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:01 am
Reflex
Not much of a difference IMO. The symbol (the head swallowing its tail) seems to me to correlate with Convergence.
It was a real mind blowing experience for me when I began to realize that the cycles of material convergence was known as the breath of Brahma and a kalpa in Buddhism. Apparently the ouroboros or universe is created, eats itself, and returns to its source. Then it is created again.
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
In The Power of Myth Joseph Campbell tells a story that relates to a power greater than Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
One day, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva were boasting about each other’s greatest power. At that moment, a little boy came up to the holy trinity and asked Brahma, “What do you create?”. Brahma replied, “I can create everything.” He then asked Vishnu, “What do you preserve?”. “I preserve everything,” said Vishnu. “What do you destroy?” he asked Shiva. Shiva replied, “I can destroy everything."

Then this young boy had a single piece of straw in his hand, which was about the size of a toothpick. He asked Brahma, “Can you create a piece of straw exactly like this?” Brahma, exerting some great effort, tried to create the exact piece. But he failed. Brahma was astonished.

Then he asked Vishnu if he could protect the straw, which started to slowly dissolve under their gaze. But, Vishnu couldn’t. The straw completely vanished.

The boy picked another straw again and asked Shiva to use his power and destroy this piece of straw. Even Shiva with all his efforts failed to completely destroy the straw. The straw remained intact all of the time.

He then turned to Brahma and asked, “Did you create me?” Brahma was lost in the thought for a while. No matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t remember ever creating this child. When he realized that he did not create the child, the child vanished.

This was the point where the three gods realized they were living in heir delusion. They now realized that there is a power behind their power that is a greater power.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:21 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:54 am

When I said 'brain' in this case it implies the whole self or system interacting with the whole universe.
When I refer to the existential crisis, it is not only 'yours' but the impulses also arise from the 6 pounds of good bacteria [in your body] and their existential concerns.

Whatever is written in the holy books is directed from and conditioned to the existential crisis. What is written and expressed are meant to soothe the disturbed soul.
Huh?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2675
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Perspective

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:47 am

Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:54 am

When I said 'brain' in this case it implies the whole self or system interacting with the whole universe.
When I refer to the existential crisis, it is not only 'yours' but the impulses also arise from the 6 pounds of good bacteria [in your body] and their existential concerns.

Whatever is written in the holy books is directed from and conditioned to the existential crisis. What is written and expressed are meant to soothe the disturbed soul.
Huh?
I was expecting a rational counter not an emotional question mark.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:23 pm

I should preface my comments by saying that since this is an open forum even though what is said may be addressed to specific individuals, it is intended to speak to anyone who may be interested in such things.

Reflex:
Philosophy is about wisdom, not argument.
I agree with Plato - philosophy is the desire to be wise. Fundamental to his search for wisdom is argument. The same holds for Caputo. Both are in agreement that we fall short of the goal, that we are not wise.

Your relating of the relationship is, I take it, a relationship between you and the divine or man and God. In the passage you cite from Caputo he is questioning this relationship. He wishes to extricate himself from:
the onto-theological circuit that circles between being and beings.
We may push against the limits of language but we are still within them. Each of the things you affirm that God is is within those limits and each speaks of the relation that circles between being and beings. Each of those things articulates a concept or idea pertaining to God.

Apophatic theology is an attempt to avoid this, via negativa. But it still operates in the same categories of being and existence.
"The relating is everything: concepts and ideas pertaining to God are all but irrelevant."
All experience is bound, shaped, and determined by concepts and ideas. When you say:
A human being is the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity …
You affirm what you wish to deny. These terms, synthesis, Infinite, finite, Eternal, temporal, Freedom, and necessity are the concepts through which you not only relate your experience but through which you experience what you experience. A further sign of you conceptualizing is the use of capitals, signaling a conceptualized ranking in terms of priority, importance, and difference.

We do not first experience and then express what we experience in words. To see is not passive perception, it is active conception. It is “seeing ‘as’”. We do not simply see something, we see it 'as' this or that. The same object may be seen or taken in different ways, depending on the conceptual framework.*

*Kant had the initial insight but saw it in terms of universal categories of the mind. Heidegger and Wittgenstein both saw it in terms of the context of lived experience or a form of life. It is thus not universal but part of our situatedness our being in the world.

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:47 am
Reflex wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:54 am

When I said 'brain' in this case it implies the whole self or system interacting with the whole universe.
When I refer to the existential crisis, it is not only 'yours' but the impulses also arise from the 6 pounds of good bacteria [in your body] and their existential concerns.

Whatever is written in the holy books is directed from and conditioned to the existential crisis. What is written and expressed are meant to soothe the disturbed soul.
Huh?
I was expecting a rational counter not an emotional question mark.
Huh?

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Perspective

Post by Reflex » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:05 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:23 pm

Your relating of the relationship is, I take it, a relationship between you and the divine or man and God.
You interject things never said all the time. Why?
We may push against the limits of language but we are still within them. Each of the things you affirm that God is is within those limits and each speaks of the relation that circles between being and beings. Each of those things articulates a concept or idea pertaining to God.
Again, you are interjecting your own ideas into what was actually said. What are the implications of what was actually said?
Apophatic theology is an attempt to avoid this, via negativa. But it still operates in the same categories of being and existence.
The finger is not the moon.
You affirm what you wish to deny. These terms, synthesis, Infinite, finite, Eternal, temporal, Freedom, and necessity are the concepts through which you not only relate your experience but through which you experience what you experience. A further sign of you conceptualizing is the use of capitals, signaling a conceptualized ranking in terms of priority, importance, and difference.

We do not first experience and then express what we experience in words. To see is not passive perception, it is active conception. It is “seeing ‘as’”. We do not simply see something, we see it 'as' this or that. The same object may be seen or taken in different ways, depending on the conceptual framework.*
Why are you so fixated on words? Have you ever tried discussing the meaning of what was actually said? Try looking past the definitions of words and look to where to they point. “Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Veritas Aequitas and 4 guests