God

[phyllo]

That's what you're posting because you want to avoid dealing with the divinity of Jesus.

[puto]

First century BCE following Roman conquest-Israel and Judah-were renamed in Latin Palestina. Philistines trading partners of the ancient Romans on the Mediterranean coast, and not recognized as a Jewish homeland.
"Jew" and "Judaism" words entered during the Roman occupation, and not to designate themselves or their religion.

[Immanuel Can]

That's what you're posting because you want to avoid dealing with the divinity of Jesus.

You're hilarious.

Yes, that's what Christians just hate to talk about...you got me.

[phyllo]

Yawn

[Immanuel Can]

Yawn

Well, you certainly can see how bizarre your own comment was.

However, on we go.

[promethean75]

Verily, i teach you that everything is 'divine'. Bro (Jesus) would have been merely a supercharged mutant with anti-gravitational and healing powers. But the 'son of god' and 'I am the way' was just a bit of anthropomorphic self-flattery because Nature/God doesn't have sons (people do), and every way is the way... i mean perfect as in following necessarily from Nature. A common Roman thug thief was no less of an instance of the perfect causal order of Nature than bruv was even if bruv had more power than him. Remember, all things are equal in/by necessarily occurring - them all being effects - but unequal in capacities.

[Wizard22]

"Artifice" isn't really the right word, obviously. An "artifice" is a deceptive arrangement or inauthentic simulation of some kind. But that man was created "...in the image of God...," (and that woman was, too) is a Biblical basic established in Genesis.

Nature and Artifice is the critical distinction here. Any and everything 'Artistic' is Representational, a copy of an original. In Nature there is only originality, no "deception" or mistakes. Thus the "mistakes" (Artifice as Deception) are spawned from humans, and specifically human ignorance. Most men cannot distinguish between an original and a copy. What's worse, is a copy of a copy of a copy (from Plato's arguments, reasoning, and conclusion).

I presume you believe God to be Creator of the Universe, of the Celestial Stars (Heaven), of Earth, of under the Earth (Hell), and of Mankind. We are made in 'His' image, correct? Thus we are a copy of an original.

God is the Artist. God is the Artificer. We are the Artifice.

Isn't this your Theology and belief-system? Isn't this the foundation for the Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?


I will put forward some assertions here at this point though. The "Original Thing" must be the focus or object of religious beliefs. To be mired in falsity, lies, delusions, deceptions, and the like, is simply an inability to distinguish between originals and their copies. This is the basis of human ignorance. Because humanity cannot distinguish between Nature and Artifice(r), so too humanity cannot distinguish God(s) from Nature. To seek out God, you'd need to first identify what the "Original Thing" of God must be.

[puto]

Hebrew, “YHWH” is Yahweh's name in English: “I am what I am.” J: The oldest source, names YHWH, the Yahweh writer, “The Lord.” Earthly personal/dreams. Adam first in order of creation. Place: Judah. Ancient Mesopotamian traditions. Jew comes from Judah.
This is a really interesting board in message board writing posts.

[Immanuel Can]

In Nature there is only originality, no "deception" or mistakes. Thus the "mistakes" (Artifice as Deception) are spawned from humans, and specifically human ignorance.

Well, then, human beings can't be an "artifice." They're not produced "by humans" or "by human ignorance."

God is the Artist. God is the Artificer. We are the Artifice.

Human beings aren't "artificial." To suggest that they were would be to suppose there was a "natural" world that pre-existed them, but was not created by the same God, to which they were alien and thus an "artifice," not a natural extension. I don't think that's what you can suppose, is it?

human ignorance.

Another interesting phrase of yours.

To be "ignorant" is "not to know" something. Of what is it, that you suppose humans to be "ignorant"? And what's the cause of their "ignorance"?

Are you a Gnostic? Do you suppose a secondary, lesser, "artificer" (i.e. a demiuge) interposes and creates, rather than God?

[Wizard22]

Well, then, human beings can't be an "artifice." They're not produced "by humans" or "by human ignorance."

We have to be, insofar we are created by the Abrahamic God. Or, the Abrahamic God has to be some type of all-encompassing "Natural Force".

Another interesting phrase of yours.

To be "ignorant" is "not to know" something. Of what is it, that you suppose humans to be "ignorant"? And what's the cause of their "ignorance"?

Humans are ignorant of God. The cause of this is part from lack of intellect and part from lack of a willpower and drive to know God. All those who lack intellect go on to depend upon greater intellects than themselves (Priestly Class). This is a great risk, because the Priests can be flagrantly wrong.

Are you a Gnostic? Do you suppose a secondary, lesser, "artificer" (i.e. a demiuge) interposes and creates, rather than God?

Possibly, I'm more Agnostic though. Part of the intention of this thread, is to understand how you and everybody else can possibly understand and "know" of God.

This distinction between Nature and Artifice, Original to Copy, is important here. I can agree with you and any Abrahamic denomination of belief that the 'Holy One God' is a force of Creation. To me, that is an Artist, an Artificer, a producer of Art and Artifacts. So when you said that 'Artificial' is false, then I take it to mean that either God is false, God's Creation is false, or my interpretation is false.

I don't believe a work of Art is a falsity. I believe the copying of a copy of a copy of a copy of a work of art, however, is False. It is not the original. It is an imitation. And this is the common fallacy and mistake which most apply to God and religions as well. A vast amount of humanity cannot tell the copy from the original. Because of this, many become misled.

[puto]

The religion attributed to Abraham of Ur in the Bible, then settled in Canaan some time in the twentieth and nineteenth centuries BCE (Armstrong 11.) Abraham, scholars think a wandering chieftain, leading from Mesopotamian to the Mediterranean end of third century BCE (Armstrong 11.) Having, spoken the West Semitic languages, which Hebrew is one (Armstrong 11.) Abraham bought land in what is now the West Bank (Armstrong, 11.) The third wave of Hebrew descendants of Abraham arrived in Canaan from Egypt in about 1200 BCE (Armstrong 12.) Enslaved by the Egyptians and liberated by a deity called Yahweh, leader of their God Moses (Armstrong 12.) Written down in the eighth century BCE drawing on earlier narrative sources (Armstrong 12.)
Two hundred and fifty German biblical scholars questioned the Bible developed a critical Method: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (Mummert 16.) J writer is YHWH is Yahweh (Mummert 18.)
Judaism saw and new enough of the stories not to take literal (Mummert 19.)
Armstrong, Karen. "In the Beginning," A History of God The 4,000 - Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam", The New York Times, 1993 CE.
Mummert, George PHD. "Judaism"

[Immanuel Can]

Well, then, human beings can't be an "artifice." They're not produced "by humans" or "by human ignorance."

We have to be, insofar we are created by the Abrahamic God.

Unless there is a "natural" world that is distinct from the world God has created, it's not possible to call humans an "artifice." They aren't artificial, but rather a feature of the natural creation.

But if there's a "natural world" that exists distinct from the making of the Creator, then the Creator would merely be a contingent and secondary being, and the "natural world" would be the primary creator.

Is that your theory?

Another interesting phrase of yours.
To be "ignorant" is "not to know" something. Of what is it, that you suppose humans to be "ignorant"? And what's the cause of their "ignorance"?

Humans are ignorant of God. The cause of this is part from lack of intellect and part from lack of a willpower and drive to know God. All those who lack intellect go on to depend upon greater intellects than themselves (Priestly Class). This is a great risk, because the Priests can be flagrantly wrong.

Yes, they can. But I don't think we can look much to priests. After all, what is the basis of their epistemic privilege? How is it that they think they know what others do not? We'd want to examine their credentials, surely...and our judgment of them would be made not merely on the basis of their title, but rather on the basis of their conformity to truth. Yet, on what basis do WE know truth, so as to be able to make the kind of assessment you make of them?

If we think we have transcended "ignorance," how do we know we have?

Are you a Gnostic? Do you suppose a secondary, lesser, "artificer" (i.e. a demiuge) interposes and creates, rather than God?

Possibly, I'm more Agnostic though. Part of the intention of this thread, is to understand how you and everybody else can possibly understand and "know" of God.

Okay, fair enough...but the first consideration is going to be establishing what each of us understands by the word "God." Monotheists think "God" means the Supreme Being, First Cause, and Unmoved Mover of the universe. Polytheists think it means some sort of secondary, local and limited being. And Gnostics think it means an ignorant or malicious entity thought to have created the universe, but only to be a distant emanation from the ultimate source of being.

So we have to pick a horse and ride it. We can't all use different definitions of what we're looking for, and still expect to help each other arrive at a singular, clear-headed conclusion. So what is your definition of "God"?

So when you said that 'Artificial' is false, then I take it to mean that either God is false, God's Creation is false, or my interpretation is false.

Not quite. An "artifice," by definition, is "artificial." It is, in that sense, false, but the emphasis is rather on the unnaturalness relative to some other state assumed to be more "natural" or automatically the case. So if we call man an "artifice," we're implying he's an "artificial" thing God somehow imposed into the "natural" world. That's a very odd way to see things, both from a Materialist perspective, and from a Theistic one. Neither would accept such a characterization of man. Both would want to insist man is in his natural environment when he's in the world, and is a part of this world, not something "artificial" to it.