Interesting argument against God

[Mike D]

Mike D, why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things

Well if you believe god is everything then you certainly could think that he could be identified through all things. In fact, really, you can believe anything is any other crazy thing you can possibly dream up. I can believe my dog is a magical elf, but is that really rational? I say "no".

[quicksand]

Well if you believe god is everything then you certainly could think that he could be identified through all things.

Right, so when the Christian accuces us of trying to make ourselves God, we can point to their own reasoning and say in fact, no, it is you that make us God since God is in everything.

 

I want my damn 10% yearly tithe right now with interest!

 

[Clergicide]

Just millions?  When thinking in universal terms, I think the rate is much different.  how about in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^9999999 or more, years?

 

Scale.. I think we can't comprehend the scale of things.  We always tend to put them on our terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The scale we're looking for is finite vs infinite. You've sadly missed the point that our 'supposed' creator is also our and his destroyer.

 

You do know that our sun is 1/3 to 1/2 way through it's life as a G2 star? Or do you suppose a creator would let the lights burn halfway out before populating planet? Was he thinking "Well..I could give humans this much time(full life of our sun)..but I bore so easily. Maybe I'll bury some dinosaur bones, to really screw around with these humans, before I start construction on Adam."

[ExRC]

He is a very special boy.

 

Even maintaining that all things are OF God, that immediately includes the bad. 

 

If we  entertain the outlandish notion that the devil was an angel made pure and then fell from the grace of God and subsequently created the evil in the world.  We must then ask if the negative emotion that Lucifer experienced and directed at God, was an emotion that Lucifer himself had to invent, or if it already existed and Lucifer simply tapped into it.  If it was on tap, the answer is obvious, God created the evil in the world.  If, however, Lucifer invented it and God is Omniscient, and Omnipresent, then God not only knew that Lucifer would create evil, but God was also there when he did it.  Knowing this, and being present for it, God did nothing to stop it, if God is Omnipotent then he surely had the power to stop it.  Therefore it takes little to say, Lucifer did that which he was created to do, and by proxy God remains the source of all evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. The inevitable conclusion is that, by the logic of Christians themselves, God is the source of all evil!

[Amanda]

And what about evil? God is necessarily evil by this statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, God created evil as well as good. Everything that was created was created by God and for God.

 

It seems to me that we need opposing forces in order to identify an experience. Sight is because of an opposing force to light, kinesthetic feelings are because of an opposing force to the touch, hearing is because of opposition to the silence, etc., and we could not know happiness unless we knew sorrow, life unless we knew death, health if we did not know sickness, security if we did not know calamity, etc..

 

Hopefully we are evolving to uphold in great appreciation these positive aspects, so that we will eliminate these negative ones. Hopefully we will always appreciate these positive ones even when these negative ones no longer exist. Do we appreciate today simple things like airconditioning/heaters, telephones, electricity, etc. ?

[Amanda]

If we  entertain the outlandish notion that the devil was an angel made pure and then fell from the grace of God and subsequently created the evil in the world.  We must then ask if the negative emotion that Lucifer experienced and directed at God, was an emotion that Lucifer himself had to invent, or if it already existed and Lucifer simply tapped into it.  If it was on tap, the answer is obvious, God created the evil in the world.  If, however, Lucifer invented it and God is Omniscient, and Omnipresent, then God not only knew that Lucifer would create evil, but God was also there when he did it.  Knowing this, and being present for it, God did nothing to stop it, if God is Omnipotent then he surely had the power to stop it.  Therefore it takes little to say, Lucifer did that which he was created to do, and by proxy God remains the source of all evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Clergycide!

 

God may allow evil, may be the original source.... yet, I know this is not a Bible study forum, so excuse me... but, Lucifer is NOT the devil or Satan! Whenever one's name changed in the Bible, it tells you. It NEVER says Lucifer changed into Satan. How could someone who was created perfect in all their ways be the father of lies, lying is his native tongue? Satan never tempts himself, only others... so how could Lucipher be Satan?

[Fweethawt]

father of lies, lying is his native tongue? Satan never tempts himself, only others... so how could Lucipher be Satan?

Why is it that the supposed "Father of Lies", never tells one?

[Amanda]

Right, so when the Christian accuces us of trying to make ourselves God, we can point to their own reasoning and say in fact, no, it is you that make us God since God is in everything.

 

I want my damn 10% yearly tithe right now with interest!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

John 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

Hi Quicksand!

 

I don't think any ONE person is God, yet ALL are in the 'family' of God.

 

BTW, FWIW, Biblical context of tithing 10% is not the same manner how churches purport it to be now, IMO. The new interpretation commonly used seems to be a self motivated evolution for survival of the church.

[Ouroboros]

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

John 10:34

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

Hi Quicksand!

 

I don't think any ONE person is God, yet ALL are in the 'family' of God.

Uh, uh... you're on a dangerous track here. Jesus said we are gods. Who are we to argue?

 

BTW, FWIW, Biblical context of tithing 10% is not the same manner how churches purport it to be now, IMO. The new interpretation commonly used seems to be a self motivated evolution for survival of the church. 

Like a membership fee!

[Amanda]

Why is it that the supposed "Father of Lies", never tells one? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about when he tempted Lucipher into thinking he was better than God?

 

He is the author of confusion and deceit, often very subtle in nature. Deceiving and lying can be synonymous.

 

Satan is more like the guy that weeds the garden. He tests what is in us, if we fall because of a weakness... then we get the repercussions of our actions till we finally say we won't do it again... and believe differently! Satan is part of the 'purifying' process. Yes, IMO, Satan was made by God and for God in this manner. He is an adversary to our carnal nature, not our spirit.

[Fweethawt]

How about when he tempted Lucipher into thinking he was better than God?

But.... you just said--up there-- that Lucifer is perfect! How can a perfect being be tempted?

He is the author of confusion and deceit, often very subtle in nature. Deceiving and lying can be synonymous.

You umm... you wouldn't happen to have an example that shows how lying and deception are different, would you?

Satan is more like the guy that weeds the garden. He tests what is in us, if we fall because of a weakness... then we get the repercussions of our actions till we finally say we won't do it again... and believe differently! Satan is part of the 'purifying' process. Yes, IMO, Satan was made by God and for God in this manner. He is an adversary to our carnal nature, not our spirit.

I see.

[Amanda]

But.... you just said--up there-- that Lucifer is perfect! How can a perfect being be tempted?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Fweethawt! Lucifer was created perfectly in all his ways until iniquity was found in him. Once his vanity was tempted, he thought he was better than God.

 

You umm... you wouldn't happen to have an example that shows how lying and deception are different, would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The first example that comes to mind is when Jesus said to his disciples that he would be going into town and that he would be crucified. Peter responded by saying, no way Master... I won't let them do that to you! Jesus said to Peter, get behind thee Satan.

 

Satan, through Peter, was deceiving by implying that Jesus needed Peter's help and/or this was not the thing that was to happen. Jesus knew who he was in God and God in him, he knew God's will to be done, and he was not less than that, nor in deception.

 

Satan deceived Eve into thinking that she was not in the likeness and image of God. He told her she would not die, and she did suffer spiritual death by condemnation.

 

But as I've said before, Satan is not the bad guy. He tempts our weaknesses and we become stronger because of it. He brings us out of the 'lie' by tempting our belief in it. IMHO.

[Fweethawt]

Hi Fweethawt! Lucifer was created perfectly in all his ways until iniquity was found in him.

[SkepticOfBible]

Satan deceived Eve into thinking that she was not in the likeness and image of God. He told her she would not die, and she did suffer spiritual death by condemnation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where are you getting this information. Satan doesn't appear anywhere in the entire book of Genesis.There isn't one word about Satan.

Adam and Eve encountered a talking serpent which is never identified anywhere in Genesis as Satan. Satan that you are talking about is only a New Testament invention There is nothing in the OT which shows Satan as fallen angel nor as an entity disobedient to God.

[thomas]

Where are you getting this information. Satan doesn't appear anywhere in the entire book of Genesis.There isn't one word about Satan.

Adam and Eve encountered a talking serpent which is never identified anywhere in Genesis as Satan. Satan that you are talking about is only a New Testament invention There is nothing in the OT which shows Satan as fallen angel nor as an entity disobedient to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, and if one reads the account with an open mind, it is also clear that the serpent did not lie.

 

There is nothing in the account indicating that the serpent was tempting Eve. It more seems that the serpent had made observations and been thinking critically about what God had said. And then one day the seprent had a talk with Eve, Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and their eyes were opened. And according to the text, they actually became like God (one of us), and therefore they were punished by God, but they did not die.

 

Interpretations with concepts like spiritual death and going from a state of immortality to mortality are totally foreign to the text.

[Amanda]

Where are you getting this information. Satan doesn't appear anywhere in the entire book of Genesis.There isn't one word about Satan.

Adam and Eve encountered a talking serpent which is never identified anywhere in Genesis as Satan. Satan that you are talking about is only a New Testament invention There is nothing in the OT which shows Satan as fallen angel nor as an entity disobedient to God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pritishd, I've researched your claim about the serpent not being Satan, and you're right!!! I stand corrected.

 

I still think that the serpent is given the same kind of recognition as the devil, Satan, etc. It seems to me that the serpent is considered a potential venomous creature which strikes without cause or warning.

 

I've said that I don't think Satan, Serpent, Devil is an opposing force to God. He/she/it was created by God and for God. I think Serpent/Satan is an opposing force to our carnal nature, eating the dust all the days of its life... till we're left in pure spirit form.

 

It seems to me that believing Lucifer is Satan/Serpent/Devil is one of the most misguided paths away from a wonderful secret revelation in the Bible! I see no proof this fallen angel is the devil.

[Amanda]

Yes, and if one reads the account with an open mind, it is also clear that the serpent did not lie.

 

There is nothing in the account indicating that the serpent was tempting Eve. It more seems that the serpent had made observations and been thinking critically about what God had said. And then one day the seprent had a talk with Eve, Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and their eyes were opened. And according to the text, they actually became like God (one of us), and therefore they were punished by God, but they did not die.

 

Interpretations with concepts like spiritual death and going from a state of immortality to mortality are totally foreign to the text.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thomas, I guess you didn't get a chance to see the formal debate in which I participated in this site? This was the thrust of this whole debate and I think it is very clear there was a spiritual death.

 

And I might mention that the serpent subtly deceived Eve into thinking she wasn't like God, when God had said that she WAS MADE in his likeness and in his image... yet, yes, after eating the fruit she became more like God. The serpent tempted Eve, by making her feel like she wasn't good enough already, into being disobedient.

 

Having said all that, I do think it was God's plan to do so all along.

[quicksand]

Yes, God created evil as well as good. Everything that was created was created by God and for God.

If a god, such as the Bible-God is an existing, real thing and according to Christian reckoning He is responsible for all things being the locus of creation, you are correct. However, when you stated that " why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things... each a unique expression of him/her/it?" is a far cry from stating that he just "created evil." He is in fact evil since he is in fact all things. Since God is everything, all things equal god, no matter how "unique" (which is the special plead I alluded to earlier some posts ago) for whatever aspect you choose to demarcate an argument from, god can only do good according to this alleged nature as most Christian's reckon in everyday discourse.

 

So, God does evil things as well as good things, except here the Christian makes a special plead that god can not do evil things. And there is plenty of Biblical scripture to back me up this, (a certain verse in Isaiah does come to mind) I need not cite it for you.

 

Of course, we now need to press this a bit further. Since humanity is also capable of doing evil and good, in this terribly reductive dichotomy (even Hitler loved his girlfriend as Osama bin Laden loves God), how does this make god divine or anything different from your average human like yourself? It doesn't. Furthermore, since god is all things and all things are a unique identifier of him, Satan is really God and vis-a-versa. My crack about me being god is alluding to that as well. Moreover, being all things, He is inert. Can not act. Dead and still in the water. He is not a force of one type, being the force of all. This is what is meant by "ineffable". In my mind, there is no distinction between inert and ineffable.

 

Anyway, Christians would not have this problem if they did not conflate Platonic perfections of good - somewhere out "there" divorced from empiricism (to the God) and the Zororastian conception of an evil god (responsible for evil) and good god (now the Abrahamic god of good in later day hellenized Christian theology). The Christian has to this because of they are now burdened with an incoherent and internally inconsistent definition of what god, evil, or what god is as they are married to this Genesis account. You deny the law of identity in other words, and would be free of this problem if they took Genesis allegorical, as a myth, and not as a fact on the ground.

 

You see, this is what we mean that god-beings, such as Bible-God are internally inconsistent and logically incoherent.

 

It seems to me that we need opposing forces in order to identify an experience.

I can agree with this statement. However, it is you to work out the conflict between god being only a good god, while still in essence everything - for instance, every evil and evil act.

 

Ethical standards are drawn from doing right and doing wrong. Sometimes there is no clear cut distinction between the two. If God is only capable of doing good, then he is inert. If god is only capable of doing evil, he is inert. Jesus is superfluous. If god is both, then he is like us for He must make choices between the "opposing forces." Then why worship such a being? The answer usually comes that he has authority - the author of life.

 

Hopefully we are evolving to uphold in great appreciation these positive aspects, so that we will eliminate these negative ones. Hopefully we will always appreciate these positive ones even when these negative ones no longer exist. Do we appreciate today simple things like airconditioning/heaters, telephones, electricity, etc.

I would hope that we are too and I do believe that we are "evolving" better standards of how we treat each other, how we treat the lesser beings (ie animals) of our world. However, doing bad and doing good will never be a cakewalk, but a tripwire between two opposing peaks that humanity will always walk.

 

It's good to see that we have evolved beyond OT law.

[Amanda]

Hi Quicksand!

 

It's good I know how to use the dictionary! Thanks for such a well thought out post!

 

Could someone PLEASE explain to me why my post does not present the 'quote function' appropriately? When I access 'preview', it does not appear correctly. Please assist.

 

If a god, such as the Bible-God is an existing, real thing and according to Christian reckoning He is responsible for all things being the locus of creation, you are correct. However, when you stated that " why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things... each a unique expression of him/her/it?" is a far cry from stating that he just "created evil." He is in fact evil since he is in fact all things. Since God is everything, all things equal god, no matter how "unique" (which is the special plead I alluded to earlier some posts ago) for whatever aspect you choose to demarcate an argument from, god can only do good according to this alleged nature as most Christian's reckon in everyday discourse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quicksand, even 'evil' has a purpose... doesn't it? What we decide is evil has a positive aspect in its recoginition.

 

So, God does evil things as well as good things, except here the Christian makes a special plead that god can not do evil things. And there is plenty of Biblical scripture to back me up this, (a certain verse in Isaiah does come to mind) I need not cite it for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry, could you please site this one for me?

 

Of course, we now need to press this a bit further. Since humanity is also capable of doing evil and good, in this terribly reductive dichotomy (even Hitler loved his girlfriend as Osama bin Laden loves God), how does this make god divine or anything different from your average human like yourself? It doesn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

God is the average human as myself, and he experiences all things... through all things. That allows him to experience all things, doesn't it?

 

Furthermore, since god is all things and all things are a unique identifier of him, Satan is really God and vis-a-versa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Everything that was created was created by God and for God. Yes?

 

My crack about me being god is alluding to that as well. Moreover, being all things, He is inert. Can not act. Dead and still in the water. He is not a force of one type, being the force of all. This is what is meant by "ineffable". In my mind, there is no distinction between inert and ineffable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If God is ALL things, he acts in the most comprehensible way! He is therefore inclusive of ALL things! How can the force of ALL things not supercede the force of one type? How can the force of ALL be taboo, ineffable? It is the most desirable way, IMO! How can you equate the powerless and taboo to this?

 

Anyway, Christians would not have this problem if they did not conflate Platonic perfections of good - somewhere out "there" divorced from empiricism (to the God) and the Zororastian conception of an evil god (responsible for evil) and good god (now the Abrahamic god of good in later day hellenized Christian theology).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quicksand, I ask you to be more explicit here... please. Plato brought one of the most basic concepts of God! The allegory of the cave says that what we see may only be reflections of the truth! Divorced empiricism? I don't think so! Jesus brought to the forefront reason! He is the one who promoted the aspect of reason to the laws! It is not the literal translation of the law, but to consider the purpose and intent to these laws.... using reason, my friend.

 

The Christian has to this because of they are now burdened with an incoherent and internally inconsistent definition of what god, evil, or what god is as they are married to this Genesis account. You deny the law of identity in other words, and would be free of this problem if they took Genesis allegorical, as a myth, and not as a fact on the ground.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quicksand, I'm sure you are quite coherent in your presentation here... yet, would you please explain this more to me?

 

You see, this is what we mean that god-beings, such as Bible-God are internally inconsistent and logically incoherent.

I can agree with this statement. However, it is you to work out the conflict between god being only a good god, while still in essence everything - for instance, every evil and evil act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quicksand, can you see where evil can be used for good? Can you see where there is the recognition and appreciation of all things by their opposing presentation? Yen and Yang? Sweet and bitter water can not spring from the same fountain, can it?

 

Ethical standards are drawn from doing right and doing wrong. Sometimes there is no clear cut distinction between the two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Experience of both causes us to be able to better discern this fine line between the two, don't you think?

 

If God is only capable of doing good, then he is inert. If god is only capable of doing evil, he is inert.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He allows both.

 

Jesus is superfluous. If god is both, then he is like us for He must make choices between the "opposing forces."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He knows this decision between opposing forces, he is helping us to know also. God has an order established since before the beginning... and this order is leading back to him/her/it. IMO.

 

Then why worship such a being? The answer usually comes that he has authority - the author of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that the answer is in a higher calling that exists in ALL of us. When WE do what is sacred, what is right in protecting the oppressed, for helping those in a compromising position to sustain life... then these actualized behaviors should be worshiped... as this is the 'higher nature' acting through us.... IMHO.

 

I would hope that we are too and I do believe that we are "evolving" better standards of how we treat each other, how we treat the lesser beings (ie animals) of our world. However, doing bad and doing good will never be a cakewalk, but a tripwire between two opposing peaks that humanity will always walk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Isn't that search for that defining point what makes life so much more interesting? I believe that we will come to a point that respect with a humble nature will eventually win.

 

It's good to see that we have evolved beyond OT law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree!

[SkepticOfBible]

Pritishd, I've researched your claim about the serpent not being Satan, and you're right!!!  I stand corrected.

 

It seems to me that believing Lucifer is Satan/Serpent/Devil is one of the most misguided paths away from a wonderful secret revelation in the Bible! I see no proof this fallen angel is the devil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I am glad you took your time to research your bible. Actually most of my matter came from this webpage.

 

Lets Take A Look At Satan(Agnostic Review on Christianity)

Was Satan Really A Rebel And Fallen Angel? (Agnostic Review on Christianity)

 

Hope you like reading it.

 

I have question

 

What denomination of protestant christianity do you belong to? Do you consider yourself a liberal or iirerrantist christian

 

Pritish

 

PS: I like your Avatar

[Ouroboros]

Could someone PLEASE explain to me why my post does not present the 'quote function' appropriately? When I access 'preview', it does not appear correctly. Please assist. 

Too many quotes. It's limited to 10 only.

 

The solution is to break up your answer in multiple posts, or use different coloring of the text.

[Ouroboros]

A damn good post Quick. I'd never be able to put it as eloquent as you.

[quicksand]

It's good I know how to use the dictionary!  Thanks for such a well thought out post!

Thanks. I am glad we have a considerate voice of the opposition on this site. Oh and a little trick that I've learned... Online Dictionary. If I could embedded this in my forehead, I would. He He. And I usually type my responses in another program so I can use the automatic spell-checker. Then I cut-n-paste my writing and post it up online. Its a time-saving device.

 

Also, I am going to have to break this up in two long posts.

 

Quicksand, even 'evil' has a purpose... doesn't it? What we decide is evil has a positive aspect in its recoginition.

First of all, when I use the word "evil" I use it in a more poetic sense. I do not believe that evil is compelled from a supernatural or extra-natural realm (likewise good). When I state that "He (God) is in fact evil since he is in fact all things," I am not discussing the utilitarian aspects for which your statement above shifts focus. Actually, I am following the logical consequences of your statement that "why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things." The consequence is, god is evil. But that's just the first step. If god is in everything, he is every evil and every good thing. That being the case, when the Christian says god is only good they are taking a selective sample from everything of what god is, while ignoring the rest of everything else what god is. Again, this is a special plead from a selective bias.

 

I hope that make sense.

 

I'm sorry, could you please site this one for me?

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (KJ)

 

Of course that's a direct quote from God himself. (Well, if you believe in such a being.) And there are plenty of actions in the OT where God tells the Jews to go kill for land or to punish outright for pettiness that our English-commonwealth derived laws have subsumed as utterly barbaric. Furthermore, the NT, especially in Revelation shows your God as the ultimate patriarch forever punishing finite crimes against his infinite nature for infinite time. That's barbaric justice. That's the definition of evil in Christian reckoning.

 

God is the average human as myself, and he experiences all things... through all things. That allows him to experience all things, doesn't it?

Amanda, you're muddling things here, sorry. My point that "since humanity is also capable of doing evil and good" and that "how does this make god divine or anything different from your average human" is to show you that once one posits god as capable of doing good and evil, he is no different than Hitler, Osama, you or me. That's the logical consequence when the middle ground is removed when god is said to be identified through all things." Every action, every thought, every direction has the same creative weight. God is not divine, but stumbling along in life like you and I, making decisions for good or for bad.

 

Everything that was created was created by God and for God. Yes?

Again, that's not my point. If God is in all things Amanda - you've removed the middle ground between the divine and the normal everyday. And being all things, we as humans can only gather what attributes about something - like a god, from nature and say, well this is the "nature" of god. It's selective thinking and that is again the inherent problem with an all-encompassing being like a grand creator of the christian deity - there is nothing that can be said that is specific about him.Ironic though, He is always a Him.

 

My joke still stands. I am god (since I am an unique expression of Him) and I want my damn 10% with interest! LOL

 

Quicksand, I ask you to be more explicit here... please. Plato brought one of the most basic concepts of God! The allegory of the cave says that what we see may only be reflections of the truth! Divorced empiricism? I don't think so! Jesus brought to the forefront reason! He is the one who promoted the aspect of reason to the laws! It is not the literal translation of the law, but to consider the purpose and intent to these laws.... using reason, my friend.

 

**************************************

 

Quicksand, I'm sure you are quite coherent in your presentation here... yet, would you please explain this more to me

Sure thing. Its confusing, because Plato is confusing. I think it was A. Whitehead that said that Western philosophy is nothing more than a series of footnotes to Plato or something like that. LOL. In a lot of ways Whitehead is right, we in the West tend to value Plato more because of the predominance of Platonic thought grafted onto Christianity and proliferation of Christianity in the West. Historical consequence, but nothing more. But Plato is only a philoshoper, he didn't have a lock on ultimate truths and like all Greeks of antiquity, they were trying to make sense of their world by applying reason and debate. A small irony is that Plato was forgotten during the Dark Ages, but his ideas lingered none-the-less and forever modified Christianity. We also shouldn't forget that Plontinus, a neo-platonist made an enormous contribution of Platonic thought to Christianity as well.

 

Anyway, to explain this some more I will go a little more in-depth. Perhaps Ficino, AUB, or Mr. Spooky will jump in and correct me if misstate or mistake in my understanding.

 

In the DVD version of Gladiator, there is a cut scene where Maximus son ask his mother what "heaven" is like. (I think those are the characters - I haven't watched it in sometime.) She tells her son that in "heaven" all circles are perfectly round. What she is alluding to are Platonic forms of perfection. Plato taught that there was a perfect form of beauty somewhere out there and here on Earth we only had shadow or dull glimpses of it and that only well trained individuals with perfect reasoning could get us closer to these perfect forms in heaven - or where-ever. This is a gross simplification of course, however, if there are perfect circles, perfect beauty in heaven, then there is also a perfect from of reasoning in heaven. So, the question is begged, where can you begin your inquiry if the reason that you have now is inadequate in some way? This is what I mean by divorced from empiricism. AUB made the point sometime ago and some other thread ago that when a caveman unwittingly drops a bolder on a fellow caveman for whatever reason the first time, has he committed an evil act? No. He learns that it causes pain by analogy from his own mind. Well, that's where facts and data are found - on the ground. In the context of here on Earth and not somewhere out there in the ether of Platonic forms.

 

Likewise with Plato's allegorical cave. If I am just an inadequate mirror of my perfect form out "there", I have no grounds here on Earth - the only context which I know of, to even begin to justify or establish which is which. The perfect circles are out "there" so what can I trust by my senses here on Earth as a basis to begin to understand or delineate between the two? I have nothing. I have no ground to root my understanding in. Conversely, I could argue that we already do live in this ether of platonic forms of perfect circles, reason, and beauty. Why not? To press this further, since the perfect form of good is out there (conflated by Christians - Augustine I think, to that God is the perfect from of Good) what can be said about good here? When the Boris Karloff Frankstein monster rescues the little girl from drowning, is that a good act? How can we say for sure if the perfect good is out there still floating in the ether?

 

We can say nothing according to platonic forms of perfection. We are divorced from our own reason, our own sense of right or wrong, because it all exists in perfection somewhere else, divorced from our very real and crucial struggle on this planet today.

 

Incoherent, and if you are going to take this approach, you can say nothing of Jesus nature, of God's nature, of any nature of being.

[quicksand]

contiuning...

 

Quicksand, can you see where evil can be used for good? Can you see where there is the recognition and appreciation of all things by their opposing presentation? Yen and Yang? Sweet and bitter water can not spring from the same fountain, can it?

 

*************************

 

Experience of both causes us to be able to better discern this fine line between the two, don't you think?

Very poetic. Obviously, there are good things and there are bad things. You are attempting to harmonize that "evil" is not bad (or not good) and in lock-step with a good nature of god. I think. You don't give me much to go on.

 

He allows both.

 

*************************'

 

He knows this decision between opposing forces, he is helping us to know also. God has an order established since before the beginning... and this order is leading back to him/her/it. IMO.

Not my point. Jesus is superfluous in this regard as god is in all things, remember? Jesus is god (as I am God per consequence of the reasoning), therefore Jesus did not suffer. Can the eternal nature of God suffer? Well, that's an old debate that raged in the 4th and 5th c.e. I really don't feel like covering it in detail, however, allowing as you state above is a shift in focus.

 

I think that the answer is in a higher calling that exists in ALL of us. When WE do what is sacred, what is right in protecting the oppressed, for helping those in a compromising position to sustain life... then these actualized behaviors should be worshiped... as this is the 'higher nature' acting through us.... IMHO.

If the higher calling is a form of platonic perfect, you can say nothing of it. If it is in this sphere, it is not divine or immaterial nor is it supernatural.

 

Isn't that search for that defining point what makes life so much more interesting? I believe that we will come to a point that respect with a humble nature will eventually win.

Perhaps.

[quicksand]

A damn good post Quick. I'd never be able to put it as eloquent as you.

 

 

Quicksand,

 

That was a very good post, thanks for giving my brain a good workout this a.m.

Thanks guys, its a high complement from you both! Cheers!