Christianity

[henry quirk]

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

So hostile.

[henry quirk]

*No. In context, the placeholder God is the symbol or name of the being (person) who created the universe.

But symbols are the created. In the same context, the artist's painting is an object of the artist's desire, the painting is the created - which implies it must have had a creator....Which can only mean one thing....the creator is infinite in nature and every created thing is an inseparable expression couched within that infinite creator...so that tells us that there is only the Creator ...which is mental. The Creator is mental...in the context I will show you here>

The artist/creator is never in the painting it creates, the painting is always of the artist/creator. What that means, is that creation in and off itself is self-creating with itself alone. It needs no outside agency to create it. Which means either you are God or God is you..which is the same thing. There is no other way to explain God...right?

If you do not agree with what I have said, then *I would appreciate your critique.

I can't critique what I don't understand, DAM.

As I reckon it, God created Reality. God is not the Creation. Each -- God, Creation -- currently exist independent of one another, just as the novelist and his embodied thought, the novel (as it's committed to paper) exist independent of one another.

[henry quirk]

Deity just means god. You're deluding yourself if you think you are any different from any other bog-standard religious nut.

I didn't refer to deity: I boldly said, say, God.

As for the rest of your brilliant comment: meh....same old, same old.

You often refer to yourself as a 'deist' as if that's a cut above belief in 'god'

It's a word, veg. I didn't coin it. Personally, I think the word itself -- deism -- is stupid sounding. But it's the word I'm stuck with. I use it or I laboriously describe my beliefs each and every time they come up. None of us want that. These words -- theist, agnostic, Christian, atheist, deist -- even when we don't fully agree on what they mean allow conversation to move forward without, as I say, folks havin' to laboriously describe their beliefs each and every time those beliefs come up.

And: how can deism be a cut above belief in God when deism is belief in God?

[owl of Minerva]

By 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.”

…………………………………………………………………

By owl of Minerva:

The novelist is not the novel, the photo is not the photographer and the sculpture is not the sculptor because the novelist, the photographer and the sculptor are not omnipresent, one of the attributes ascribed to divinity, along with omniscience and omnipotence. People create from something. They are not the originator of the something they create, so even if they put their perspective into their creation as ideation, the raw materials are derived and their ideas are as well to some extent.

De Sade’s bodily fluids is an interesting example of something someone has by proxy. The clock is a mechanism it is not life. That is the way the universe was seen by Descartes and Newton; a machine; no inner dynamism. A clock made by a master clockmaker. This to some extent has been attributed to their religious views. Its imperfections were also in play as being unworthy of a perfect Being who has to be kept at a distance from his creation so as not to be tainted by it. A creation without duality is difficult to imagine; all light or all dark; no choices to be made; that would be mechanical or robotic.

Standing alone is a different issue, scientists do not know what life is or what its origin is, other than something from nothing. Things can be spun off, companies do it all the time, a sort of offspring of the original. All that is spun off is derived. Having life is not life itself. Being is a tricky subject, in human terms there can be a whole lot of beings and they can create novels and clocks but they themselves are still derivative.

If creation is derivative, to exist it still requires life. In its aspects of finite and infinite life is either one, or there are two forms of life disassociated from each other. The finite one, if mechanical, will cease to function if it is no longer wound or charged unless it can sustain life on its own, and if mechanical it cannot return to its source. Descartes and Newton did not see themselves in that scenario. It was alright for the universe but not for them.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And: how can deism be a cut above belief in God when deism is belief in God?

You would have to ask those who call themselves 'deists'

[Belinda]

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.

It's impossible to make an idol of nature. Nature is simply what is the case, whereas idols are particular ideas . Some people who are called theists believe that God ia what is the case plus that what is the case was intended and planned by a creator who is a person. So neither God nor nature are contingent on people's ideas, each necessarily exists and is cause of itself.

[Immanuel Can]

It's impossible to make an idol of nature.

It's very easy, actually. All you have to do is use your imagination, and invest it with all sorts of cognitive features an powers. You can use phrases like "Nature intends," or "Nature arranges that..." or "Nature causes..." You can add to it imaginary moral properties, by calling anything you deem "Natural" also "good." And you can even use it as a kind of replacement "God," as if Nature has some purposes in mind for you, and that by esteeming Nature you're being more faithful to it. You can use it as your orientation point for ethics and teleology.

That's deifying Nature. Not only can you do it, it has been frequently done by others, as well. Just anthropomorphize the sucker and admire it.

Some people who are called theists believe that God ia what is the case plus that what is the case was intended and planned by a creator

I know no Theists at all who believe that God is merely whatever "is the case," nor any that say God is what was "planned and intended" by...the Creator, you say? The "Creator," which means "God."

So now you've said that God, in addition to being "what is the case," is His own plans. That also makes no sense whatsoever.

I think you've lost yourself, B.

[RCSaunders]

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



...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.

How awful I am. I'm chagrined. You could just ask the question again, or link to the original, or just forget it. It's up to you.

[Age]

Did you MISS it ON PURPOSE, or just CONVENIENTLY?

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

There are probably MANY other options, BUT I wrote it, and as "Henry quirk" would say, " go look for it "yourself" ".

Also, I recommend you STOP making ASSUMPTIONS, or what you call "intuitively sense", like you have here, then you will also STOP being Wrong, like you are here.

Your so-called "intuitive sense" is leading you astray and into complete Falsehoods.

[Age]

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.

WHY can you NOT speak of these? Thee answers are EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY to obtain and ascertain.

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.

If you want to CLAIM that the Creation is not the Creator is true, then explain how it could even be a possibility of how SOME thing could even create EVERY thing?

If you can NOT YET SEE that this IS an IMPOSSIBILITY, then I suggest you OPEN up somewhat. Most children can resize the CONTRADICTION and IMPOSSIBILITY before they reach the age of nine. Obviously your CLOSED and VERY narrowed views are NOT YET allowing you to SEE what thee OBVIOUS and ACTUAL Truth IS.

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.

[Age]

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.

If the conscience is the compass installed in 'you', human beings, then when you work out the reasons WHY 'you', adult human beings, do NOT follow that compas, then 'you' ALL can get back on the Right track and path in Life.

Until then 'you', "Henry quirk", will keep thinking AND doing the VERY OPPOSITE of that conscience, or 'God's compass'.

[Age]

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.

We can CLEARLY SEE and UNDERSTAND that you have CONCLUDED and BELIEVE that it is an IMPOSSIBILITY that God could exist and you have NOT managed to be at all OPEN to even just consider that this might be false, either.

[Dontaskme]

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.

It's impossible to make an idol of nature. Nature is simply what is the case, whereas idols are particular ideas . Some people who are called theists believe that God ia what is the case plus that what is the case was intended and planned by a creator who is a person. So neither God nor nature are contingent on people's ideas, each necessarily exists and is cause of itself.

You are absolutely spot on Belinda
God is completely transcendent of thought——

I understand completely what you are saying which is lost on IC

IC is totally clueless about Nonduality.

Your posts are very lucid lately so kudos to you.

[Age]

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.

And, it also helps you tremendously to pick and choose what you want readers to SEE and to NOT SEE. It also makes it EXTREMELY HARDER for readers to follow the discussions you have with "others", which in turn majesnit harder to follow it find what thee ACTUAL Truth is, which benefits you tremendously considering the amount of deceptions you are attempting here.

[Age]

It's impossible to make an idol of nature.

It's very easy, actually. All you have to do is use your imagination, and invest it with all sorts of cognitive features an powers. You can use phrases like "Nature intends," or "Nature arranges that..." or "Nature causes..."

It may be very easy for 'you', human beings, to make idols out of things, but to do so is just illogical, unnecessary, and nonsensical. But just because one uses a phrase like "something causes ..." there is absolutely NO requirement for, nor of, 'idolization' AT ALL.

You can add to it imaginary moral properties, by calling anything you deem "Natural" also "good."

But just deeming ANY thing 'natural' also 'good' does NOT making 'idolizing', automatic.

And you can even use it as a kind of replacement "God," as if Nature has some purposes in mind for you, and that by esteeming Nature you're being more faithful to it. You can use it as your orientation point for ethics and teleology.

But STILL absolutely NO 'idolisation' needs to take place.

That's deifying Nature. Not only can you do it, it has been frequently done by others, as well. Just anthropomorphize the sucker and admire it.

But has ANY one even anthropomorphized Nature, Itself?

It is CLEARLY OBVIOUS that you continually anthropomorphize the word 'God' and severely idolize your OWN interpretation of that word, BUT this does NOT mean "others" do this in relation to other things.

Some people who are called theists believe that God ia what is the case plus that what is the case was intended and planned by a creator

I know no Theists at all who believe that God is merely whatever "is the case," nor any that say God is what was "planned and intended" by...the Creator, you say? The "Creator," which means "God."

So now you've said that God, in addition to being "what is the case," is His own plans. That also makes no sense whatsoever.

This would make NO sense, to you, because you STILL BELIEVE that God is some sort of male gendered anthropomorphized Thing.

I think you've lost yourself, B.