Gray Ghost wrote:I don't attribute agency to God, as if God decides to do things ... I don't even like to use the word God, but it's a regrettable necessity ... Existence itself is the Divine....
You do know we already have other readily-available terms for this besides "God," right? Words such as the "universe" or "cosmos" or "nature" spring to mind. Why bother with such a loaded and misleading term as "God" at all?
I have never quite understood the relevance of such nebulously pantheistic definitions of the word "God." I can't see any practical difference between this view and name-brand Atheism itself.
Dr. Shades wrote:My favorite response from Brian Hales included this gem (grammar in original):
. . . I do not find him guilty of any egregious sins like adultery, hypocrisy, or many of the outlandish things critics have charged. Admittedly some of his decisions are now a little difficult to understand. If I could go back in time, I might make five recommendations Joseph:
Carefully consider marrying Fanny Alger without telling Emma. If possible, convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start.
Carefully consider being sealed to fourteen-year-old plural wives even if the marriages are not consummated. It might generate accusations of pedophilia a hundred years later.
Carefully consider being sealed to legally married women even if for eternity only. Encouraging those women to be sealed to other priesthood holders, including their civil husbands, if worthy, may be a better choice.
Carefully consider the number of plural wives you marry. Even if Old Testament patriarchs had dozens of plural wives, limiting your wives, whether for eternity only or time and eternity, might be more easily understood by observers years later.
Carefully consider limiting your involvement in politics. Letting someone else be mayor of Nauvoo may insulate you from liability in dealing with the Nauvoo Expositor.
Note that he didn't say "carefully RE-consider."
For my money, my absolute favorite is this part of #1: "Convince the angel that Emma needs to be involved from the start." 'Cause obviously the angel hadn't considered that approach. Perhaps Joseph could've also convinced the angel to go back to God's presence and convince God that Emma should be involved, since God most likely sent the angel off without really thinking things through beforehand.
I thought this was a parody at first. "convince the angel" Oh my. Brian Hales must believe God is a bumbling idiot. Great stuff.
Chap wrote: No, I don't mean that. I meant why bother adding the word "God" to a sentence if it "adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses". Reward and punishment is not the issue. Signifying something identifiable is.
I don't agree that it adds precisely nothing. Especially when the definition for God here is so expansive. Nothing could be greater than "all things".
Why do you think it's important that God be something very specific and individual?
In an interview in the 1950's, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright was asked about his belief in God. His answer was something to the effect of "I put a capital 'N' in front of Nature and understand that to be God."
While I don't know that we have the same understanding, Gray Ghost, I tend to agree with what I read you as saying. For me, the difference between a purely materialistic view of the universe and one where Nature could be synonymous with concepts of the Divine or a deleveraged God concept is one of reverence. Even in the face of an indifferent and violent reality there is something sublime in the way things are, and it engenders a sense of gratitude to be a part of it all, if just for a blink.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Gray Ghost wrote:I don't attribute agency to God, as if God decides to do things ... I don't even like to use the word God, but it's a regrettable necessity ... Existence itself is the Divine....
You do know we already have other readily-available terms for this besides "God," right? Words such as the "universe" or "cosmos" or "nature" spring to mind. Why bother with such a loaded and misleading term as "God" at all?
I have never quite understood the relevance of such nebulously pantheistic definitions of the word "God." I can't see any practical difference between this view and name-brand Atheism itself.
Well, assume for a moment that your world view is that the only thing that exists is God. How might that change your outlook on life? Your interaction with others? With nature?
Chap wrote: No, I don't mean that. I meant why bother adding the word "God" to a sentence if it "adds precisely nothing, except a vague flavor of a religious allegiance that the user of the word no longer actually possesses". Reward and punishment is not the issue. Signifying something identifiable is.
What it adds, in my experience, is sacredness in the every day. Everything becomes sacred under this model for God.
People grow up with a model of God built upon the template of a human being, which means a specific God with an ego and a personality and an agenda and demands. But why is that intrinsically more meaningful or desirable than a model of God without those traits?
In an interview in the 1950's, the architect Frank Lloyd Wright was asked about his belief in God. His answer was something to the effect of "I put a capital 'N' in front of Nature and understand that to be God."
While I don't know that we have the same understanding, Gray Ghost, I tend to agree with what I read you as saying. For me, the difference between a purely materialistic view of the universe and one where Nature could be synonymous with concepts of the Divine or a deleveraged God concept is one of reverence. Even in the face of an indifferent and violent reality there is something sublime in the way things are, and it engenders a sense of gratitude to be a part of it all, if just for a blink.
Well said. I reject the same kind of God that atheists tend to reject. But the concept of God I do accept adds does fill me with a great sense of reverence. A greater appreciation for sacredness.
Gray Ghost wrote:Or, to put it another way, God is the only thing that exists.
Driven to despair by his fruitless attempts to understand the Universe, the sage Devadasa finally announced in exasperation ALL STATEMENTS THAT CONTAIN THE WORD GOD ARE FALSE. Instantly, his least-favourite disciple Somasiri replied "The sentence I am now speaking contains the word God. I fail to see, Oh Noble Master, how that simple statement can be false." Devadasa considered the matter for several Poyas. Then he answered, this time with apparent satisfaction: ONLY STATEMENTS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN THE WORD GOD CAN BE TRUE. After a pause barely sufficient for a starving mongoose to swallow a millet seed, Somasiri replied: "If this statement applies to itself; Oh Venerable One, it cannot be true, because it contains the word God. But if it is not true -" At this point, Devadasa broke his begging-bowl upon Somasiri's head, and should therefore be honoured as the true founder of Zen. (From a fragment of the Culavamsa, as yet undiscovered)
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei