Christianity

[Belinda]

But God and the concept of God are the same.

Nope. Man holds an image in his head, one not entirely accurate, of an independently existing being, the first being, the being who undergirds being.


Before there were men there was no God, only nature.

Nope. Before man, before nature, before reality: there was the Creator.

*Nature is an independently existing being. Nature needs no cause ; nature is cause of itself. God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have.

*That's pantheism, yeah? I'm a deist: nature/Reality exists, it has beings (persons like you and me) within it. And a being (person) created it. But nature is not a being.

What I wrote is pantheism, but I did also write "God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have." by which I mean that God is like the pantheists' God-Nature synonym, but also with the extra addition of intelligent intentions.

Me, I am sometimes a deist. And sometimes an atheist. I can't make up my mind.

[Sculptor]

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

If man is gifted by god, I think that makes you a theist.
What makes you think this idea makes sense?

If a deist's God creates man with reason, conscience, and free will, how is this not a gift?

That is the Theist god, not a deist one.

It makes sense to me. I'm willin' to discuss it, but -- as I have no holy book to advise me, no holy men to direct me, no coffers to fill, and no compulsion to convert anyone -- I couldn't give two drizzly shits if my deism makes sense to you or anyone.

Oh, Henry, that's so intemperate, and hostile!

Yep. I know who I'm contendin' with: sculptor is no buddy of mine and his interest in my deism is motivated by distaste, not curiosity. That doesn't mean I won't talk with him; it does mean I ain't gonna pretend the conversation is anything but a hostile one.

Okay so you want to run away. I understand that you were brought up with the assumption of god existing and you have not managed to extend your thinking to consider that this might be false.

[Age]

What are you ASSUMING is "my own purpose" in this discussion here with you?

I have no clue what your purpose is: I only know you have one.

Do you have ANY clue how I have supposedly "badly misinterpreted" then, INSTEAD?

By the way, you can keep re-repeating the above as many times as you like but this does NOT DETRACT from what those words ACTUAL MEAN to you when someone touches your stuff or enters your home and what you BELIEVE you have a right to do and/or would do.

What you claim...

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

...is not connected to this...

A man belongs to himself.

A man's life, liberty, and property are his.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

But they ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED.

Can you REALLY NOT YET SEE the CONNECTION?

I derived that from other things you have SAID, in which you made it VERY CLEAR that this is EXACTLY what you BELIEVE you have a right to do. (BUT, because I am NOT going to go looking for those words of yours, we can DISREGARD this CLAIM if you like. It does NOT worry me at all).

No, I ain't lettin' you off the hook. What other things have I said wherein it was very clear that this...

in "henry quirk's" world, if someone touches "henry's stuff", even if it is a toothpick, or they are standing in a building, which you claims "is yours", you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to forfeit that one's life, liberty, or property, in part or in whole.

...is exactly what I believe I have a right to do?

I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED the ACTUAL WORDS you USED. If you want to PRETEND that I have NOT, then AGAIN, this does NOT worry me AT ALL.

And, all you would have to do is say, "they had no just cause to touch my stuff". Because, to you, (like a very spoilt child), you have the attitude that, "this is MINE", and, "NO one can touch MY stuff without MY permission".

Nope. All that nonsense doesn't follow from my position.

LOOK, you have CLEARLY NOT supplied EVERY thing I have written, and so just PICKED and CHOSE the words that you think or BELIEVE will FIT YOUR purpose and intention here, but ALL ANY one has to do is just LOOK AT what 'you' and 'I' have written here.

What I have written follows PERFECTLY from YOUR POSITION. As PROVEN above.

Wrap your head around this, if you can: if I take a life, I have to justify it, to God, the community, and myself.

You have ALREADY done this in YOUR CLAIM that if ANY one touches (YOUR) PROPERTY, then they forfeit, in part or in whole, their life. And, you standing there with your shotgun DO HOLD the BELIEF that that one touching your stuff is doing so without just cause. So, you have ALREADY "justified" to "yourself" as so you take action FIRST, and then will plead with tears, like a little baby, to the community, that I was JUSTIFIED to do what I did, and then, to God, you will just keep FOOLING "yourself" that God approved of what you did, and that God will FORGIVE you anyway, no matter what you did.

If you touched my prized toothpick there's no just cause in takin' your life.

Great, so I can enter YOUR HOME, at 3 in the morning, take ANY toothpick of yours, and while I am there I might as well take ANY other prized "possession" of yours, and there will be NO 'just cause' for you taking "my life", correct?

It's a toothpick, age, you can have it (mind you, I already picked my teeth with it, so -- mebbe -- you don't wanna put it in your mouth).

AND, when readers LOOK BACK at what you have PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN, then what they will SEE is that you have used a "toothpick" as an example of how you BELIEVED you had the 'right' to kill ANOTHER human being if they touched YOUR toothpick. You may have now changed YOUR VIEW, which I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY CONGRATULATE you for, but that you used a "toothpick" as an example BEFORE can be and will be CLEARLY SEEN.

Your problem, I think, is you think so literally there's no room for nuance or common sense.

We are in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM discussion things that HOPEFULLY lead us to FINDING and SEEING thee ACTUAL Truth of things. If we are not going to, literally, write, and read, literally here, in a philosophy forum, then when will we ever?

Also, WHY did you bring this up here now? WHY would you reference me thinking "so literally" now when I have been talking about you previously writing about what you would do if someone touched "your toothpick"?

Is this just COINCIDENTAL?

You think like a machine (rationally), not like a man (reasonably).

JUST MAYBE I am LOOKING AT and SEEING things rationally, logically, AND reasonably? And NOT just one of them, like 'you', men' do.

Try this: which of the followin'...

a toothpick, my coffee mug, my car, my kid, my self

...do you believe I value most?

HOW MANY TIMES do 'you', men, HAVE TO BE TOLD that I do NOT believe ANY thing, BEFORE this Fact is comprehended and sinks in DEEP into your KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING?

Which do you believe I value least?

AGAIN, I do NOT believe ANY thing, which INCLUDES which on you value least NOR most.

Also, I do NOT care what you value least NOR most anyway. What I do KNOW, however, is you wrote that people forfeit their right to life if they deprive, knowingly, willingly, or without just cause touch yours or "others" property, which OBVIOUSLY includes toothpicks, coffee mugs, and televisions.

Oh, and by the way, ONLY when 'you' TELL 'us', and you are Honest, what you value most and least, then 'we' will KNOW, EXACTLY, what you value least AND most.

If reasonable like a man, the most and least valued are obvious to you; if only rational like a machine, you'll flub it up.

I have ALREADY INFORMED you that I do NOT like to ASSUME ANY thing. So, I am NOT going to do it now, for you.

From what you have said PREVIOUSLY, most would ASSUME that you would value "your self" BEFORE you valued "your kid".

And, even from the way you wrote your list above, you could have, un or semi consciously put it in order of least valued to most valued, which would NOT be surprising, AT ALL, from what you have PREVIOUSLY SAID. But this would be VERY UNFORTUNATE.

[Age]

Now it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you are NOT YET AWARE what 'self-awareness' refers to, EXACTLY.

It means you lack self-awareness (you have no awareness of self, of the inconsistency of your actions).

BUT you lacking ANY of the inconsistencies of your behaviors is NOT lacking self-awareness.

Lacking 'self-awareness' means or refers to lacking awareness of the 'self'. And, when one does NOT YET KNOW who nor what thy 'self' IS, EXACTLY, then they lack 'self-awareness' OBVIOUSLY.

You aren't aware of the incongruity between claiming I believe sumthin' and then never backin' that claim, and askin' DAM why she attributed sumthin' to you that wasn't yours (you're incapable of seein' the contradiction between the two).

And, if are CAPABLE of PROVING that I have ACTUALLY done ANY of this, then just PROVE it.

1. I have ALREADY PROVEN that you BELIEVE some thing, by the way.

2. WHEN did I ask "dontaskme" why she attributed something to me, that was, supposedly, not mine?

3. WHAT was 'it' that I asked "dontaskme" why she attributed 'it' to me?

4. We will WAIT for your responses BEFORE we decide if there was an ACTUAL contradiction between the two.

Also, I use the word 'forfeit' in the EXACT SAME way that you are MEANING that word.

No, you don't (I'm still curious which dictionary you used to look forfeit up).

I TOLD you ALREADY.

Did you MISS it ON PURPOSE, or just CONVENIENTLY?

[Immanuel Can]

Nature is an independently existing being. Nature needs no cause ; nature is cause of itself.

This is just the deification of nature...sometimes called "idolatry," and condemned in Romans 1.

God is the same as nature plus the sort of intelligent intentions that human beings have.

Oh, so God is two things now? He's the big "N" Nature, Nature as God, plus whatever "intentions" were fromed by "human beings" that, at one time, didn't even exist?

Sorry, B...nobody can make sense of a claim like that. God can't be both contingent and eternal, both Nature and whatever notions enter a human head. Those are mutually-contradicting claims.

[Immanuel Can]

"God is dead" -- Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" -- God.

Anticipating Age:

Man LOL
God LOLL

Heh. Why would one want to "anticipate" Age?

[owl of Minerva]

The problem with deism is that it does not pass the test of logic. If there is one God; one substance, then creation must be made of that substance, as there is no other. So the belief that the Creator is not involved in creation which is viewed as something other than the substance of the Creator, requires an explanation of what the created substance is and how it maintains its life, being autonomous. It does not appear that any life is independent of the whole or capable of surviving without being connected to or enlivened by its source. In the quantum world everything is entangled.

Pantheism would appear to be the most logical perspective or theism. Although theism appears to see creation as something other than the original substance, the Creator perceived as connected only through oversight.

A pantheism that meets the tests of realism and logic would be creation seen as a shadow or reflection of the one Substance, rather than the one Substance in its entirety, as ALL there is, which limits the Supreme Being to the vicissitudes of nature, rather than being independent of it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Did you MISS it ON PURPOSE, or just CONVENIENTLY?

Excuse me but I intuitively sense there must be a THIRD OPTION.

[RCSaunders]

God exists. He created the universe. He created man. Man is gifted by God with reason, conscience, and free will (in other words, everything we need to make a go of it). God is not personally involved in how Reality unfolds. Revelation isn't necessary to suss out God.

By what process or means did you arrive at that conclusion based on what evidence, if you care to explain. I'm just curious why anyone believes there must be anything more than the actual world we directly perceive and live in?

RC, I'd be happy to tell you how I arrived at deism, right after you clear this...

RC,

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

...up for me.

(the little ↑ will take you to the conversation we almost had, if you need to refresh your memory)

I'm sorry Henry. I've read your post three times now and still have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. You don't have to explain yourself to me, or anyone else--I was truly curious. But don't have to make excuses, bringing up totally irrelevant hypothetical question (which seem very bizarre to me). Are these the kind of things you spend your time worrying about?

You don't have to answer that question either.

[henry quirk]

Owl,

The problem with deism is that it does not pass the test of logic. If there is one God; one substance, then creation must be made of that substance, as there is no other.

I can't speak as to what God is made of, or what Reality, and what's in Reality, is -- at rock bottom -- made of.

Seems to me, though: the novel is not the novelist, the photograph is not the photographer, the sculpture is not the sculptor (hey you! I'll burst your bubble in a bit), the meal is not the cook, and the Creation is not the Creator.


So the belief that the Creator is not involved in creation which is viewed as something other than the substance of the Creator, requires an explanation of what the created substance is and how it maintains its life, being autonomous.

I don't see why. We accept, know, Sol exists without fully understanding it. We guess at its interior workings and structure, and we're probably pretty close in those guessings, but ultimately it's just guesswork. And Sol's substance? Primarily hydrogen: one electron, one proton. Simple, yeah? What are these two particles made of? Again, we guess at it: superstrings (silly strings?)? Up, down, strange, quark, leptons? And what are these more basic particles made up? Is it turtles all the way down? Probably not. But we don't know. Supposedly the quark is rock bottom: a quark is made of quark. Is quark God's substance, His rock bottom? Let's say it is. In Quills, De Sade, after being denied his writing materials, used his own bodily fluids, his own substance, to make a kind of paint which he used to write his plays on the walls of his cell. If a man can use his own blood and other things to create sumthin' independent of himself, why can't God?


It does not appear that any life is independent of the whole or capable of surviving without being connected to or enlivened by its source. In the quantum world everything is entangled.

The clockmaker designs, constructs, winds up the clock, then goes off for a nice evening with his missus. God designs, constructs, winds up the universe, then does. Two creators, mostly different becuz of scale, creating. Two mechanisms, finite in longevity, tickin' away on their own. Same difference.


Pantheism would appear to be the most logical perspective or theism. Although theism appears to see creation as something other than the original substance, the Creator perceived as connected only through oversight.

Theists are accused of wanting a big Sky Daddy to be responsible for them, to take care of them. Pantheism, it seems to me, goes one step further, sayin' we're all part of God (as bits of his liver or pancreas). Seems to me the pantheist wants to be absorbed by God (a notion I find horrific).

As I reckon it: God didn't build a universe to eat it, or to endlessly fiddle with it. He built it, and us, for the thrill of Creation. He built Reality, and us, to stand alone, just as the novelist, the photographer, the sculptor creates his works to stand alone.

[henry quirk]

By what process or means did you arrive at that conclusion based on what evidence, if you care to explain. I'm just curious why anyone believes there must be anything more than the actual world we directly perceive and live in?

RC, I'd be happy to tell you how I arrived at deism, right after you clear this...

RC,

After a mornin' of tradin' on the black & gray markets you come home to find your wife dead. Her throat is slashed open as is her belly. Your house is ransacked. It's obvious this ain't suicide.

What do you?

...up for me.

(the little ↑ will take you to the conversation we almost had, if you need to refresh your memory)

I'm sorry Henry. I've read your post three times now and still have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. You don't have to explain yourself to me, or anyone else--I was truly curious. But don't have to make excuses, bringing up totally irrelevant hypothetical question (which seem very bizarre to me). Are these the kind of things you spend your time worrying about?

You don't have to answer that question either.

You poked in to that other thread, askin' questions, which I answered (and I asked one of mine). You never responded, to my answers or my question. Can't see much point in answering your questions here, when you'll just abandon the conversation ss you did there.

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

me: If a deist's God creates man with reason, conscience, and free will, how is this not a gift?

you: That is the Theist god, not a deist one.

So, if a creator -- a novelist, a painter, a sculptor, God, -- takes care with his work, he can never set it aside to do sumthin' else? That's what you're sayin', you know.


you: Okay so you want to run away.

As I say: I'm willin' to discuss it...but I ain't gonna pretend the conversation with you is anything but a hostile one.


you: I understand that you were brought up with the assumption of god existing and you have not managed to extend your thinking to consider that this might be false.

You understand nuthin'. I was an atheist for most of my life. I was brought up by irreligious folks. I came to deism late.

[henry quirk]

Belinda,

Me, I am sometimes a deist. And sometimes an atheist. I can't make up my mind.

As I reckon it: God is okay with that. He doesn't need your belief. Your conscience (the compass He installed at your core) is supposed to be your guide, not an eternally hoverin' soccer mom.

[Sculptor]

sculptor,

me: If a deist's God creates man with reason, conscience, and free will, how is this not a gift?

you: That is the Theist god, not a deist one.

So, if a creator -- a novelist, a painter, a sculptor, God, -- takes care with his work, he can never set it aside to do sumthin' else? That's what you're sayin', you know.


you: Okay so you want to run away.

As I say: I'm willin' to discuss it...but I ain't gonna pretend the conversation with you is anything but a hostile one.


you: I understand that you were brought up with the assumption of god existing and you have not managed to extend your thinking to consider that this might be false.

You understand nuthin'. I was an atheist for most of my life. I was brought up by irreligious folks. I came to deism late.

Yes, I know you are confused. But you still live where you live.

[henry quirk]

age,

You're my special project, so I'll address all your comments later today, or tommorow.

This...

"henry quirk" WHY do you quote us properly or in a help way, sometimes, but NOT at other times?

...I'll answer now.

Why am I inconsistent in my quoting? Becuz it pleases me.