How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Gods
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Gods

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


0 posted 09-03-2002 04:23 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I sometimes have a feeling that many of the Gods (with "Gods" I refer to Godesses too) we read about, write about and talk about are really exaggerations and personifictions that indirectly refer to our own wills and our own selves-- in various artful shapes the matter of us, that we created to create ourselves more, and sometimes fill in a blank space.
Why can't we I darsay directly call ourselves Gods?  Why do we deny this, our own kind our own highest regard and many of these attributes?  We are creators of concepts, meanings, languages, industies, arts, governments.  To me, this is not natural but rather supernatural. We should not dismiss the very possibility that we are  the most sophisticated, powerful and concious beings of the universe. But rather I believe we should hold it more closely in our hearts and esteem.  Look upon what we do, you might know from my previous post I don't think we're perfect, I don't think we ever can be or ever be all-knowing, and we are not  we are not always better than the way we were and thought. But I truly believe we ourselves and all creatures are divine, and that no matter how outlandish it  may seem against so many beliefs, even aganst many of my own, there may exist no perfect Gods but we may be the closest shapes to these, and the very Gods that we indirectly refer to in our literatures and religion.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-03-2002 07:14 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 09-03-2002 07:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

the belief you are describing is nothing new.  It is athieism, or rather atheistic humanism which says "Humanity is the center of all things".  And so the interpretation goes (according to humanism) that all religions and spiritual beliefs are inventions of men.  Therefore it follows that there is no such thing as divine revelation... and certainly no such thing as an all knowing, all-powerful creator who made all things.  In other words, No real God.  See, the concept of humanism is that Mankind makes "god".  But the revelation in scripture emphatically says that God made mankind.  Who made who?  If we made him, then he falls under the category of mythology, and the worst kind ... the kind that threatens Eternal consequences if you don't believe it ... the kind that actual men and women (of upright character) gave their lives for and staked everything on.  As C.S. Lewis once said, and I share his feelings here... either Jesus Christ was a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord.  There are no patronizing views of Jesus that are plausible... especially if you believe the historical documents that give us the New Testament are reliable, and I do.

Now I'm not saying that the accounts about God, and Jesus Christ should be accepted as the "Truth" because they were said or written.  They should only be accepted if they are really true.  But if they are not true, then I would be no Christian.  And if God were not a God in his own right ... if he was only a creative expression  given by humans to somehow make the hard realities of life more bearable,  then I would despise any idea of God.  It would be a very deceptive belief and a cruel hoax... something to be opposed.  (Of course if there is no real God, then I guess opposing "evil" makes no sense anyway since we all share the same hopelss fate of oblivion).  Because "God" in the Judeo-Christian tradition is portrayed as an eternal being without beginning or end.  He had no need for someone to create him because he is the source of all things ... his own power and glory and infinite goodness are the sustaining force of his life.  He is the original.  Other "gods" may fit comfortably enough in the category of man-made images but not the Judeo-Christian God.  That is why "idols" are viewed in such a deplorable way in the scriptures.  What are idols?  They are not just gods in competition... they are man-made gods that people choose to worship and give the attributes of deity to.  But they really don't have the attributes of deity ... because they are reflections of the mortals who made them.  Personally, I know that I am not God... I know that you and no one else on this forum is God.  I appreciate you all but the title of  "being of highest order" I am unable to give you or anyone ... including myself.  I know who I am.  We have to know we're really not Gods don't we?  

Excuse me, I don't mean to come off abrasive.  But I think people should believe in God or not... If you think God is a construct of humanity, then say "I don't believe".  Because to me, another construct of humanity is just more of the same ... nothing to deliver us, nothing to give us hope, no insight above what our often muddled reasonings can attain.  But if God is really God. .. then there is a sure hope.

Stephen.

brian madden
Member Elite
since 05-06-2000
Posts 4532
ireland


2 posted 09-03-2002 07:42 PM       View Profile for brian madden   Email brian madden   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for brian madden

Nietzsche put forward similar thoughts,
he argued that man could be and is his own god.

"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest".

Friedrich Nietzsche


I believe the reason that we look to other gods, is because though we can create and destroy we are dwarfed by the elements of nature, by the mysteries of the world, as great as we are there are forces greater than us. We need reassurance hence our worship of god/gods. It is a search for answers, a search for our purpose on this planet.
sometimes have a feeling that many of the Gods (with "Gods" I refer to Godesses too) we read about, write about and talk about are really exaggerations and personifictions that indirectly refer to our own wills and our own selves-- in various artful shapes the matter of us, that we created to create ourselves more, and sometimes fill in a blank space.
Why can't we I darsay directly call ourselves Gods?  Why do we deny this, our own kind our own highest regard and many of these attributes?  We are creators of concepts, meanings, languages, industies, arts, governments.  To me, this is not natural but rather supernatural. We should not dismiss the very possibility that we are  the most sophisticated, powerful and concious beings of the universe. But rather I believe we should hold it more closely in our hearts and esteem.  Look upon what we do, you might know from my previous post I don't think we're perfect, I don't think we ever can be or ever be all-knowing, and we are not  we are not always better than the way we were and thought. But I truly believe we ourselves and all creatures are divine, and that no matter how outlandish it  may seem against so many beliefs, even aganst many of my own, there may exist no perfect Gods but we may be the closest shapes to these, and the very Gods that we indirectly refer to in our literatures and religion.

"To the depths of the ocean where all hopes sank searching for you Moving through the silence without motion
waiting for you" ian curtis

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


3 posted 09-04-2002 01:35 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Yes Nietzsche said similar things, but there is no mistaking what he meant when he said them ... When someone says to me "Man is his own God" ... it invariably means "there is no God".  Essorant expressed this perfectly in the original post by saying:

"we are  the most sophisticated, powerful and concious beings of the universe. . . I don't think we're perfect, I don't think we ever can be or ever be all-knowing, and we are not always better than the way we were and thought. But I truly believe we ourselves and all creatures are divine. . . there may exist no perfect Gods but we may be the closest shapes to these, and the very Gods that we indirectly refer to in our literatures and religion."

Notice the references to imperfection, limited knowledge, and lack of moral excellence, followed by the suggestion that we should nevertheless think of ourselves as "divine".  This is simply a redefining of "divinity".  It is bringing divinity down ... It is like saying, "Since we don't believe that there exists any being like this, but are greatly fascinated by the honor and laurels of the title, we will take the attributes, lower their standard, and make them our own.  Yep, we're divine... "  But what does divine mean?  Call the standard a myth if you think it doesn't exist, but don't say the standard really means something different. . . It's not being honest.  This is nothing more than taking spiritual words out of the context of the belief system or world view in which they were recieved and applying them to another world view.  All I'm saying is if one is an atheist, he should be one indeed.  And Nietzsche was no doubt an Atheist.   Read his writings closely and you will find that his true beliefs are represented.  Of course I believe that he was and is dead wrong ... but he told where he stood with unabashed clarity.


"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science

Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-05-2002 02:09 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


4 posted 09-04-2002 03:58 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

just popped in to smile beatifically.

The Napkin Writer
Member
since 06-28-2002
Posts 72


5 posted 09-04-2002 05:31 PM       View Profile for The Napkin Writer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for The Napkin Writer

First of, it sounds to me as if a bunch of questions are being asked, more so than answered.  

Quote:
Why can't we I darsay directly call ourselves Gods?  Why do we deny this, our own kind our own highest regard and many of these attributes?

The use of the word “Gods,” that is God with an “s” at the end could very well be referring to the first Commandment from the book of Exodus 20:3  “You shall have no others gods before me.”  The word gods appears in this thread, also using an “s” at the end.  To me it means one or two things; that there are, or were at one time or another, some lower forms of god-like beings; or God is speaking of “any god or gods” we may conceive in our minds, our literature, our hearts, or anything else.   I have heard in many cases where some regard the mother Mary as the Devine one.  So to me all those who may be so in cline to do so, just may be breaking Gods’ first Commandment! Wouldn’t believing such a thing make them atheist also, or would these people be exempt, because she is Jesus earthly mother?


Quote:
I sometimes have a feeling that many of the Gods (with "Gods" I refer to Goddesses too) we read about, write about and talk about are really exaggerations and personifications that indirectly refer to our own wills and our own selves-- in various artful shapes the matter of us, that we created to create ourselves more, and sometimes fill in a blank space.

In other words, I see Essorant as saying, that we as mankind, in our quest to give a tangible substance to that which we do not see, and can barely explain, “God,” as an easier, recognizable, image!  

We can get a pretty clear description of what Jesus looks like from the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible is a hint of Gods’ likeness, or any human “facial” likeness.   Exodus 33:20 But He said, (speaking to Moses), “You cannot see my face; for no man shall see me and live.”  In 33:22 God tells Moses that he is covering him with His hand as His Glory passes by.  In 33:23 God tells Moses that once He takes away his hand, he will be able to see His back.  So Moses did see God, but he never saw His face!  It never says what Gods back looks like either.  It could have been the back of a horse, a cow or a sheep, for all we know!  Many, myself included, would love to think that God looks exactly like us, like men, but we don’t know that, so we as mankind, (and womenkind too), as writers, filmmakers, illustrators, or whomever, we cast this image of what we may believe God to look like, whether we do so openly or privately.  

As when she says;
“Indirectly refer to our own wills and our own selves “

Like in the movie “Oh God,” where George Burns plays God, and in the back of your mind, you have this little picture of George Burns running around Heaven with this fat cigar in his mouth cracking jokes on people as he is sending to hell.  But most of the time you see a movies’ portrayal of God as some form of celestial blob, at other times you will only heard a thundering voice, with all this rumbling in the background, and at other instances you will only see a bright casting of a light.    


Quote:
To me, this is not natural but rather supernatural. We should not dismiss the very possibility that we are  the most sophisticated, powerful and concious beings of the universe. But rather I believe we should hold it more closely in our hearts and esteem.  Look upon what we do, you might know from my previous post I don't think we're perfect, I don't think we ever can be or ever be all-knowing, and we are not  we are not always better than the way we were and thought.

For one she speaks in terms of possibilities, and the thing that we should hold in our hearts is the fact that god made us in his image, and not in the image of frogs, goats, and monkeys, although if you believe some scientist, God looks like a monkey.  She goes on to say that we are not “perfect”, that we are not “all-knowing” and that we are not, regardless to what we may believe, “better off today as far as our images are concerned, than we were, say four thousand years ago, when we were making idols.

On of the biggest issues in our country today is the “cloning of humanity.”  I was watching the news this morning, and these scientists have taken out part the brain of a chicken’s embryo and replaced it with the identical section from a quail.  Now the baby chicken is running around acting like, a quail!  He has even taken on the likeness of a quail in color and spotting.  Now if this isn’t playing God, then what is?  We do try to act like we are gods, with all of our little petty creations and inventions, trying our best to elongate life, curve the balance of time, destroy the “nature” of this world and still live like we are not destroying the earth, and are going to live here forever, regardless to what God said our destiny is to be.

Quote:
But I truly believe we ourselves and all creatures are divine, and that no matter how outlandish it  may seem against so many beliefs, even aganst many of my own, there may exist no perfect Gods but we may be the closest shapes to these, and the very Gods that we indirectly refer to in our literatures and religion.

In here she is not just talking about man, but all living things being Devine, and that no matter what image or idol we may create, we our in Gods image.


Essorant:
I really had to work at this and read a lot in between the lines, to come to this conclusion.  I really put my faith in some of the things you said in earlier threads, and decided for myself that you are not an atheist.  But, the passage as a whole, can be confusing and misleading.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


6 posted 09-05-2002 03:32 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I avow in my actual life I usually do look toward my own self and the human world around me for the highest response toward things more than I ever imagine anything beyond ourselves except the little pieces of luck or bad luck sometimes might betide.  My religion has always been terresterialbound. I put the world and humans on the first pedestal, because they are my life and kind, that I fellowfeel with all moments.  I can never be prepared to put my faith in God as much inasmuch as God is not at hand, my fellows are at hand--God is a question to me too often, humans are too but they are my immediate family that are in my very eyes in need and whom I wish to serve with the best faith of my body, whether there be a god or no, they are there.   I shall serve humans and the world to serve humans and this world, and it will serve as well a perfect God if there be one, whether I will believe in her or him, or not.  And glad I did, and didn't depend too much on thoughts and faith to God, if there is no God, the kind we refer to most of the time.  
I can climb Olympus for Zeus, and I will most likely only find the crown of Olympus itself, maybe others like me, and more question; I can climb all the universe, but will probably only find the universe and others like me again and more questions--this can't again be absolute, but is how my own llife experiences have been.  There usually isn't a figure of absolute fullfillment all knowing but another question and wanting a companion, more love wanting--this doesn't say there are no Gods, but I believe it says the Gods are our own souls, we are the Gods in the machines and of what we do and our worlds, of a greater part of things than we have ever really attributed and said directly.  Highest government of our estate is in our own energy and hearts, it is not going to be saved by some supernal bolt out of the blue--from an absolute God or cast good-luck day, it is going to be defined by the truth within that takes time and the toil without.  It's needful we see the magnitude and put ourselves on the right scale of our responsibility, feel the weight of what is in our hands--our own world, which we are really in charge of.  This is what is toward a heaven or hell how we make it, for we are what who are changing it most of all.  Most of the time it seem we move so fast, as fast as light, and we can't even see ourselves, let alone an absolute God that we will look for.  I just feel there will never be an absolute either this way or that, but either will always be tugging with other--theism in atheism, atheism in theism there is always tug somewhere--I just can't believe in an absolute power.  Not in me and you will never convince me that you are absolute power, theist without fragrments of atheism under the rug.  Things have to tug for balance, and balance itself is still never perfect.  We may or may not be Gods atop most of it; but I would rather give us the benifit of the doubt, even though we're not perfect.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-05-2002 03:42 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


7 posted 11-16-2002 06:28 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

We tend to have an "all or nothing" philosphy with Gods that says Gods should be all we portray them to be or they are non-existant.  This absolutism is what is destroying religion!  
I don't believe that any God is ever absolutly what we portry him, but nor do I  that one absolutly is not.  
If you want Zeus to exist absolutly he will not be there, but if you recognize that he is a symbol of the sky and its behavior, lust and power, domination, many things of ourselves,  You can find every aspect about Zeus existant in real life.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-16-2002 06:30 PM).]

Wind
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 10-12-2002
Posts 3185


8 posted 11-16-2002 07:27 PM       View Profile for Wind   Email Wind   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Wind

Yep, just call me the goddess of love

"Sticks and stones will break my bones,
But words will break my heart"

Phaedrus
Member
since 01-26-2002
Posts 280


9 posted 11-16-2002 08:09 PM       View Profile for Phaedrus   Email Phaedrus   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Phaedrus

Essorant,

I don’t believe there is a God, smoking a cigar or otherwise, at a stretch I can just about imagine that we’re the closest thing to it if the measure of Godliness is sophistication and power. In that sense I can see the God of men created as a reflection of his own self and the world around him, though I’m not sure that worshipping yourself would work in the same way as worshipping an all powerful other.

In the end though I don’t think it matters which God or gods you believe or disbelieve in as long as you have faith in your belief (or disbelief), are comfortable with it and respect the beliefs of others.

[This message has been edited by Phaedrus (11-16-2002 08:11 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


10 posted 11-17-2002 12:41 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Phædrus:

I admire your saying.  
I have always judged religiousness as one's way of respecting her/his beliefs and those of others.  
God may have many personalities, which would account for the diverse ways of believing, and perceptions of more than one God.  But the many it seems could never open their minds to consider this suggestion because we have always seemed to perceive and portray Gods individually as absolute figures of absolute personalities.  Peoples have grown to fond of their own beliefs, written them in gold, and are not prepared to confront the possibility of a different truth.  
If God has many personalities we reflect him even more--for humans seem to have more than one side to their soul.  I know I do, and most of what I've studied of a human nature has shown various personality about it.  
But yet, there are times when something says in me -we may be many of these personalities referred to alone, all of us and all that is of us, as if each  could be absolute.  Just because we are not absolute though should not be a reason to detest the possibility of us!  We have a high hand over nature, and I believe we may have the highest, so we shouldn't treat the responsibility to anything less than the highest, even if we don't!  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-17-2002 01:58 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


11 posted 11-17-2002 02:01 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I have to ask though, if we consider ourselves "God/dess" (thank you for that acknowledgement Essorant--grin) would that not imply an ending of growth?

Perhaps we are "as gods?" because this implies our creative ability and natural inclination toward growth inherent in both our psyche and our biological instinct for survival.

This does beg the question: are we expected,--are we programmed to evolutionize into "God"? Which, as my busy mind takes me to--"then what?"

This I hope I never know.

My God/dess is still around.



I like it that way.

Phaedrus
Member
since 01-26-2002
Posts 280


12 posted 11-17-2002 06:59 AM       View Profile for Phaedrus   Email Phaedrus   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Phaedrus

Serenity,

I don’t think it would imply an end of growth if man turned out to be his own God/gods/goddess but it would certainly require a revaluation of the term “God”. In fact it would probably remove the usefulness of religion totally, can a God be a God in the traditional sense if he/she is reduced to our equal?

You ask would there be an end to growth, I wonder if there would be any change at all.

To imagine what would change, if anything, you’d need to step into the shoes of an atheist and consider for a moment a world without God.

What exactly would change?

The religious among us would maintain that moral standards would degenerate and the world would be plunged into chaos. We’ve discussed morality several times in these forums and one thing that seems clear is that a belief in God/gods/goddesses is not necessary to possess and live by a set of moral standards. In that respect morality would seem to be assured with or without a deity.

Would wisdom and learning suddenly cease? If the answer is to this is yes the supposition must be that only religious people can be wise and capable of learning. The evidence in the world today of individuals who possess both capabilities but do not subscribe to the existence of any deity would seem to suggest that wisdom and learning would continue.

What of the Arts? It is true that religious conviction has contributed to art but again if one artist can be found who did not possess such conviction art would continue to be produced. I’d go one step further and say that art containing religious content would in fact continue to be produced. Poets even now write about long abandoned gods and there is no reason to suppose they’ll stop doing so in an imagined future where God in the truest sense ceases to exist.

It may seem that I’m suggesting that nothing would change, I’m not, everything would change to some degree but the changes would not in my opinion be earth shattering. I personally don’t believe that God will ever cease to exist for those who believe in him, in the same way and for the same reason I don’t believe he will ever exist for everybody – there is no proof either way and belief/disbelief is a matter of personal choice.

Thanks for the chance to read and reply
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


13 posted 11-17-2002 09:29 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I simply, and as a matter of personal choice refuse to attempt to define "God"--once we name it, we limit it. In my perspective, slaying the potential of a thing does indeed "kill" it. The vibrancy lies in the evolution.

(and I told myself that I was going to stay out of this discussion, so smiling, I'm going back to the audience and take my seat quietly. But I AM enjoying the show. Thanks all.)
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


14 posted 11-17-2002 06:49 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Serenity,
And is'nt that the way people are?
Who wants to be defined and called absolutly this or that--they are never in really absolutly what they are steretyped as, even though the stereotypes have some truth.

Essorant.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


15 posted 11-17-2002 07:02 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

An unnamed God can exert no power. An unlimited God can have no power.

Perhaps that is what you want, not to limit God, but to keep it amorphous and therefore impotent.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


16 posted 11-17-2002 07:11 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
An unnamed God can exert no power. An unlimited God can have no power.

That sounds pretty, Brad. Care to elaborate?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


17 posted 11-17-2002 10:16 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Thanks Ron---that was so much nicer than the "says who?" I was gonna yell from my seat...

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


18 posted 11-17-2002 10:45 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I wanted to emphasize my original point too.
When we define God by naming God--we also define what God is not--for example--

"God is this chair."

So we logically eliminate the idea that God is also the sofa, or we accept that calling or naming God "chair" is an inadequate definition. If we accept that God is this "chair" and not the sofa, do we not therefore deny the omnipotence of God to be both--not to mention the omnipresence that happens to be a part of my admittedly limited abiity to know the unknowable?

As to the various Gods of MAN's creation of fundamental archetype and mythology, I suggest, Essorant, that humanity simply named aspects of God--various names. Just as we can take our fingernail clippings and say "this is me" and be both correct but not entirely accurate--we can also say that wind is God, and even name wind "Thor"--when actually we are simply attempting to make sense of an inconceivable whole.

and Brad, if you want to yell "says who?" back at me grin--it's okay, I don't mind. But I'm sure you are aware of most my influences--Joseph Campbell, Carlo Suares, Emmanuel Swedenborg, the Zohar, as well as the various authors of the Bible and the pseudepigraphia.

And I'm going back to my chair again. Left brain thinking gives me writer's block.  

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (11-17-2002 11:43 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


19 posted 11-17-2002 11:54 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, my first thought was to think that it's a very arrogant thing to say that labeling a God can somehow limit his/her/its anything. But then I realized that the sentence already included a labeling, a name, and that there's no way to talk about something without names. To not name something is to have no knowledge of it. But look at that sentence, "To not name something is to have no knowledge of it," already names something: that which I have no knowlege of. If naming were limited, there would be no way to get around that limitation. Assuming a god such as this it wouldn't be able to tell 'us' anything for if it did we would ascribe whatever phenomena to something else. As a result, god wouldn't be able to talk to us without a name. It could kill us, but we could never give it any credit for anything.  That's what I mean by a nameless God having no power insomuch as having power means the ability to be recognized as God.    

It's funny because I used to think labeling was limiting myself until I realized that it is impossible not to label. The mistake many people make is that naming or labeling gives or takes any power at all, people feel trapped but that's an illusion, naming doesn't predict anything because naming is never exhaustive. It's being dismissed with a label, not being dismissed with a label.

To say, "God is this chair" does not imply that "God is not this sofa" anymore than it limits me by saying, "I am a father" means "I am not a teacher".  To assume that it does is to assume an uncontextualized statement and the last time I checked, the only entity that could say things out of a context was God (which is in itself already a context). So, why is everyone trying to play God?

Besides I could always pull Hegel out of the hat and say that "God is this chair," already includes its own negation, "God is not this chair," not the negation of something else.

The second statement that an unlimited God has no power is that, in order to do anything, God must refrain from negating that action. If it does negate the action then no action occurred. If that happens, it didn't happen. So, an unlimited God, in order to be unlimited, can't do anything.        
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


20 posted 11-18-2002 12:35 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

smiling...exactly. It's a lesson in futility.

But? I thought you might enjoy this:
http://www.iahushua.com/ST-RP/tetje.htm

There's others. But I'd like to point out while language is confounding, the Hebrew used it in a symbolic manner. Note the names of Abram and Sarai. The addition of what in hebrew would be the letter Hay--meaning breath of God..or G-d, which is how I should be typing that for this purpose, artfully exemplifying a personal transformation made possible by the acknowledgement of the presence of the Divine.

This is a subject that has fascinated me for years, and I still study.

Thanks for taking the time Brad, OH...and your reply reminded me of something I just read yesterday. I'll be back with that link as well. Thanks again.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


21 posted 11-18-2002 01:50 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Strangely enough, I agree with your explanations more than I do with your conclusions. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "An unnamed God is impossible" (even if, perhaps, less pretty)?

As to the paradoxes of unlimited power, you haven't even scratched the surface. Could a being of unlimited power create another being of unlimited power? Who prevails when they disagree? I suspect the potential for paradox is probably infinite. BUT, as I said in another thread, omnipotence actually negates paradox, almost by definition. A paradox is a contradiction in reality, but unlimited power defines what reality is. If a being of unlimited power could undo anything he did, he could also declare it to not be a paradox. Or he could make paradox to be the norm. Whatever he did, THAT would be our reality.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


22 posted 11-18-2002 06:54 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


Why can't we for one moment put away more and beyond and consider accepting less and here as very potential answers?  
It may seem coarse, but it yet may be the the truth.  We may have put things too far beyond ourselves, have put things into excesses,  be wanting too much of a more, when there is not really that type of supply of more, available.
What will it take?  What will we have to do to be enough for ourselves?  The human mind seems such an insatiable being.  What ever we are, what we have, where we are at is, is never enough.  We could be teleporting at a snap of our fingers across the universe, shooting lightning bolts out of our eyes, walking through fires on air, changing weathers with our wills as we please--and we would still not realize what we have in our hand over the rest of nature, our highness that we use so casually.
We should never stop pursuing better, but we are too often seeking an absolute in our minds, which though is the way to absolute peace in our theory, most often only results in extremes, excess and a chaos in reality, as we stife to be just as "absolute" for, but find ourselves unable.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-19-2002 08:51 PM).]

Juno
New Member
since 11-16-2002
Posts 8


23 posted 11-24-2002 12:35 AM       View Profile for Juno   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Juno

Ye Gods mortal and enrolled in nature, that coarse confining mesh impervious to perfection bound under the fates' hands of eternal changes turning, wit ye well, ye are all Gods of thine own planes, but there are  planes higher that uphold the rest, and superior, with Gods equally high and superior whose unsullied senses are forever everywhere wide wandering.  So truth convey out, for that however cringed or hidden away from mortal Gods eyes that you know are less able in nature, it is always looked upon by the immortal broad and surrounding. None is exempted, None is ignored--respect must be given, or woe-worth ye.  Forever are you and your plane subject, inside and under higher powers!

Juno!

[This message has been edited by Juno (11-24-2002 03:04 AM).]

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Gods Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors