Religion is not About God

[bobevenson]

Religion is not about God, it's about oppression!

[Nick_A]

Reflex, you’re really on a roll. I’d like to add a few things and if the coast remains clear, we can delve more deeply into the ideas you’ve brought.

God-as-he-is-within-himself is indeed without parts; he is pure act (pure actuality). That is to say, God does not have being but is Being itself. He is not a composite of act and potency(potentiality). It follows from this that Creatorship is not an attribute of God, but rather the aggregate of God's immutable, eternal and acting nature. The universe may go through different phases where the “laws of nature” vary and there may be multiple universes, but God-as-he-is-within-himself is forever changeless.

This is why I’ve come to accept that the universe is the body of God. God IS while the universe carries on the cyclical process of existence

The cover illustration of God without Parts by James E. Dolezal shows white light passing through a prism and a spectrum of colors coming out the other side. It's an appropriate analogy, especially if the prism is understood as representing God's will. We live, move and have our being in and as the spectrum of God's light,

St Paul made the same point:

Acts 17: 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

I suppose one can say, along with with Steven Weinberg, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” but that point of view has serious implications and ramifications with respect to what it means to be human.

That is something we can get into. Does the universe have a purpose similar to the purpose our body serves for our being and can we form a working hypothesis to help us experience it?

[HexHammer]

Completely clueless OP.

It IS about god/s, why did the great flood occur? Because humans have become ungodly (atheistic) ..so yearh, you don't know what you are talking about.

Oh dear, gonna have to add you to the fund_a_mental_list.

But I'm right.

[Skip]

If anybody calls you on your nonsense, obfuscate the rhetoric, shift the definitions, encroach on subject matters outside your purview, appropriate their terminology for your relabelling of the nonsense. Oh, and ignore retorts that are too concise for your long-winded apologia.

[HexHammer]

attofishpi

Dog, do you believe that Jesus is God?

[Reflex]

I suppose one can say, along with with Steven Weinberg, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” but that point of view has serious implications and ramifications with respect to what it means to be human.

T

That is something we can get into. Does the universe have a purpose similar to the purpose our body serves for our being and can we form a working hypothesis to help us experience it?

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. -- Bertrand Russell

As human beings, we have fears, loves, hopes, dreams, aspirations and a longing for something more than the belief that all this is but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter, because on top of all this, we have foresight. The indefiniteness of our existence, as I alluded to, is the act of God escaping from the fetters of unqualified infinity. I am not willing to safely build my soul's habitation on "the firm foundation of unyielding despair." As Thomas Aquinas said, "...the slenderest knowledge that may be obtained of the highest things is more desirable than the most certain knowledge obtained of lesser things."

Because the comprehension of many in this forum is so very limited, I want to reiterate that these posts are not an effort to establish the fact of God's existence or what he must be like, but rather about formulating a narrative or “myth” consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live, a narrative that is goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying and consistent with science, even if not evidenced by it. I'm not saying this is the way things are, but positing a hypothesis that give my life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying in ways that materialism, subjective idealism, or “just because” is not.

I should remind my critics that no self-respecting critic will opine against something about which he or she knows nothing or without positing a viable alternative. There is no coercion, no requirement to accept that what I'm saying is true. That is contrary to my purpose and the purpose of philosophy in general. I only hope to encourage people to create a directionalizing and in-depth narrative philosophy of their own instead of being satisfied with slight attainments, just enough to stabilize daily living, or progressing to the level of logical intellectuality only there to stagnate in consequence of timidity and the bumper-sticker and sound bite mentality of the day.

[Dalek Prime]

People talk about God and the universe like its the biggest and best thing ever. Well, guess what encompasses it? What it's expanding into? The void. Perfect void surrounds God and the universe. God and the cosmos are irregularities in it.; small pointless subsets of a perfect void. Now, one can avoid thinking about it because none of us will ever experience the void. But that doesn't change that it's there, encompassing that which one thinks is important.

*Edited for generalisation.*

[Reflex]

Reflex, you talk about God and the universe like its the biggest and best thing ever. Well, guess what encompasses it? What it's expanding into? The void. Perfect void surrounds God and the universe. God and the cosmos are irregularities in it.; small pointless subsets of a perfect void. Now, you can avoid thinking about it because none of us will ever experience the void. But that doesn't change that it's there, encompassing that which you think is important.

If you didn't write this, Dalek, I'd swear you were illiterate. Read the first and last sentences in the OP. Is what you are saying the least bit edifying? Or is it more along the lines of what Bertrand Russell wrote?

[Dalek Prime]

Reflex, you talk about God and the universe like its the biggest and best thing ever. Well, guess what encompasses it? What it's expanding into? The void. Perfect void surrounds God and the universe. God and the cosmos are irregularities in it.; small pointless subsets of a perfect void. Now, you can avoid thinking about it because none of us will ever experience the void. But that doesn't change that it's there, encompassing that which you think is important.

If you didn't write this, Dalek, I'd swear you were illiterate. Read the first and last sentences in the OP. Is what you are saying the least bit edifying? Or is it more along the lines of what Bertrand Russell wrote?

Fair enough. I stand corrected. But whilst I admittedly responded in haste, I stand by what I wrote, in general, on the subject. Consider my post an undirected, unaddressed statement of my philosophy, with apologies to you.

However, if you disagree with my statement, do address it, instead of denigrating it, or giving Russell credit for it.

*Note: original post, fixed.*

PS. I am illiterate. My cat wrote this.

[Nick_A]

Reflex, you wrote: Because the comprehension of many in this forum is so very limited, I want to reiterate that these posts are not an effort to establish the fact of God's existence or what he must be like, but rather about formulating a narrative or “myth” consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live, a narrative that is goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying and consistent with science, even if not evidenced by it. I'm not saying this is the way things are, but positing a hypothesis that give my life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying in ways that materialism, subjective idealism, or “just because” is not.

What would you suggest is step one in this hypothesis? Step one for me is to admit that I am in Plato’s cave. My usual goal is making cave life more enjoyable. There is a deeper part of me which seeks freedom from the imagination that governs my life and prevents me from consciously witnessing my slavery to the human condition and what it denies human “being.”

Jacob Needleman wrote in his book “Lost Christianity” ... does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?

It seems to me that without this need for truth, any philosophy will just be in support of self satisfying imagination. If that is all a person wants then it is fine. However there are these lovers of wisdom and seekers of truth who are willing to sacrifice their addiction to pleasure in order to consciously experience what it means to live in Plato’s cave and is lost by this addiction. Their philosophy begins with "Know Thyself."

[Dalek Prime]

Hey Nick, with all your talk of Plato's Cave, do you suppose it's a Freudian hangup?

Hey, just trying to help. Don't get huffy.

[Reflex]

Reflex, you wrote: "Because the comprehension of many in this forum is so very limited, I want to reiterate that these posts are not an effort to establish the fact of God's existence or what he must be like, but rather about formulating a narrative or “myth” consisting of cosmological and moral elements that tell me who I am, where I come from and how I should live, a narrative that is goal-oriented, intellectually satisfying and consistent with science, even if not evidenced by it. I'm not saying this is the way things are, but positing a hypothesis that give my life direction and, at the same time, is both comforting and intellectually satisfying in ways that materialism, subjective idealism, or “just because” is not."

What would you suggest is step one in this hypothesis? Step one for me is to admit that I am in Plato’s cave. My usual goal is making cave life more enjoyable. There is a deeper part of me which seeks freedom from the imagination that governs my life and prevents me from consciously witnessing my slavery to the human condition and what it denies human “being.”

I will not presume to suggest a step one. Although all humans of normal mind are indwelt by a fragment God-as-he-is-within-himself (pure act in the Thomist sense or what Hindus call "Atman"), human nature, or what Paul called the "natural man," is simply too varied and too dominant for suggestions of that sort to be of any real use. With relatively few exceptions, people are not dissatisfied with themselves; their mind's eye is not open to receive light for the soul and must be allowed more time for the trials and difficulties of life to prepare them for the reception of wisdom and higher learning.

The purpose of the socialization of religion (I'm plagiarizing here) is to magnify the lures of truth, beauty, and goodness; to foster the attractions of supreme values; to enhance the service of unselfish fellowship and to glorify the potentials of family life. But as religion becomes institutionalized, its power for good is curtailed while the possibilities for evil are greatly multiplied. The dangers of formalized religion are:

• (1) fixation of beliefs and crystallization of sentiments;
  (2) accumulation of vested interests with increase of secularization;
  (3) tendency to standardize and fossilize truth;
  (4) diversion of religion from the service of God to the service of the church;
  (5)inclination of leaders to become administrators instead of ministers;
  (6) tendency to form sects and competitive divisions;
  (7) establishment of oppressive ecclesiastical authority;
  (8) creation of the aristocratic “chosen-people” attitude;
  (9) fostering of false and exaggerated ideas of sacredness;
  (10) the routinizing of religion and the petrification of worship;
  (11) tendency to venerate the past while ignoring present demands;
  (12) failure to make up-to-date interpretations of religion;
  (13) entanglement with functions of secular institutions;
  (14) it creates the evil discrimination of religious castes;
  (15) it becomes an intolerant judge of orthodoxy;
  (16) it fails to hold the interest of adventurous youth and gradually loses its edifying message.

In short, formal religion restrains men in their personal spiritual activities instead of releasing them for heightened service as "kingdom builders" (to us a colloquial phrase).

Dalek: I'll get to your post later. Time for me to recharge the Tardis.

[uwot]

I should remind my critics that no self-respecting critic will opine against something about which he or she knows nothing or without positing a viable alternative.

All you are saying is that there is a god and it's rather lovely. Your critics are asking what do you "know" about this god, and how do you know it?

[Dontaskme]

Nothing is about God.

Religion is about Nothing.

[attofishpi]

attofishpi

Dog, do you believe that Jesus is God?

I know that Jesus is the Christ. I would not be surprised if Christ is the manifestation of the God entity in human form.

I know that if i call God all the pigfuckers under the Sun i get little hell. I know that if i do the same with regards to Christ, i am told i have crossed the line and a rather large hell persists. So to that end - they seem rather separate entities.