If God is so merciful, then why did Jesus have to be sacrificed?

[Dubious]

As for God as eternal being, I cannot agree that a huge big PERSON fits the role. I conceive of eternal God as the workings of nature i.e. one big law which holds for any possible world, and for all worlds, so that it is timeless and placeless.

Naturally one has to stay alive in the relative world. Therefore if the view from eternity is to have any place in awareness it's probably better to oscillate the two views, relative and eternal, at appropriate intervals.

Nicely put! You have balanced the two perspectives very well which looks to be in complete accord with the meaning of "The human height in the infinite whole" conception. Starry Night is the perfect visual placeholder for that idea...at least I think so! As for music having the same effect one choice for me, among others, would be the Molto Adagio movement from Beethoven's 2nd "Razumovsky String Quartet" which I think would be his version of Starry Night.

[Immanuel Can]

The point with this thread is that as a theist I am automatically credited with believing certain things, whether I do or not, and it is very difficult to change those ideas.

Yep. But it's okay. We know what we know, and we are what we are. If fact, it quite suits if the Atheists can only argue based on big, fat stereotypes and imaginary diagnoses derived therefrom. They're hardly formidable when they do that.

To quote from Gorky Park (one of my favourite old movies):

One would wish for more...nimble...opponents.

[Greta]

Immanuel Can... I would like you to publically withdraw what you wrote , and make an adequate apology.

Good luck with that, Belinda. Mr Can's argument is based on his own naive misconceptions. For instance: that all atheists insist that god doesn't exist or that relativists insist that there is nothing which is actually true about the world. Neither of which is the case, but Mr Can refuses to accept that he doesn't know what he's talking about, because his entire argument would disappear in a puff of logic.
He has called anyone who fails to agree with him irrational. When that didn't work he accused us of bad faith. Recently, he implied that we believe things we know to be lies. Eventually he gives up on people who still disagree with him and simply ignores them. If he can't 'save' you, he isn't interested in you. He will insult you until you agree with him, or he will condemn you to his version of hell. Nice guy.

Told you so.

You did. Well called.

Immanuel is like a rock - strong, immovable and mindless.

[Greta]

Greta wrote:

The view from eternity may be deceptive, but then so may be the view from this relative world. As a practical proposition I'd keep the view from eternity to oscillate with the view from the relative world. I infer that one point made by Dubious by his posting "Starry Night" is that some art is a lot more wholesome than many churches and their carryings -on.

Belinda. I'm not understanding your point. Can you help please? Ta.

Do you mean my point about eternity, or about how "Starry Night" is a good picture of eternity?

Anyway, I'll address the first question ...

Belinda, if it's okay with you, I'd like to use your quote in starting a new thread.

I think it would be good to discuss this away from the noise of this thread.

[Belinda]

Greta, I look forward to it. Would it be in the 'arts' section ? Would you would introduce the topic as a theme in art, or as one function of art ? Or the science section, subsection psychology, as in how human beings, possibly alone among all other animals, want to find absolutes?

Since Dubious drew my attention to the symbolism in Starry Night i have been searching for similar symbolism. I thought that John Constable's 'Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows' was similar to Starry Night, but more optimistic the solidity of the cathedral spire, and the hope in the rainbow symbol.

Caspar David Friedrich's pictures are mainly symbolism regarding eternity. I suppose that Constable was not intentionally a symbolist, but I bet Friedrich was.

I was googling images of eternity and a lot of the images include the motif of a road often accompanied with lateral fences, which leads towards a vanished horizon, or a distant and unattainable horizon.There is a host of misleading sentimental new-agey images. I suppose that the word 'eternity' comes with connotations of superstition and religion . I'd really like to rehabilitate the word.

[Greta]

Belinda, my focus was on eternity as I don't have the kind of appreciation of art that gleans eternity from those, or any, works. Since it's your ideas, maybe you could start a thread with your particular angle? (No pressure hehe). It would be good to explore deep topics in themselves, without all the politicised angles.

[Walker]

One wonders how many scientists don’t really buy into the fantastical fundamentalism of their big banging beliefs.

They better not buy into it, if they wannabe scientists and not wannabe scientists.

[Arising_uk]

... If fact, it quite suits if the Atheists can only argue based on big, fat stereotypes and imaginary diagnoses derived therefrom. They're hardly formidable when they do that. ...

Talk about pots and glasshouses.

[Dubious]

Belinda, my focus was on eternity as I don't have the kind of appreciation of art that gleans eternity from those, or any, works. Since it's your ideas, maybe you could start a thread with your particular angle? (No pressure hehe). It would be good to explore deep topics in themselves, without all the politicised angles.

To each his own obviously. Eternity means nothing in itself, to no one and not even to science. The concept can only achieve numinosity through the symbolization of art as in Starry Night. Eternity can hardly be referenced as "some-thing or any-thing" by the human brain. There is no meaning to be derived or felt. The feeling of and for eternity can only be psychologically rendered through symbolization as expressed in art not unlike the way nature used to be anthropomorphized within the legions of indigenous gods making the experience personal. It's a prime function of humans to make abstractions personal...a tendency even science can't escape.

[Greta]

Belinda, my focus was on eternity as I don't have the kind of appreciation of art that gleans eternity from those, or any, works. Since it's your ideas, maybe you could start a thread with your particular angle? (No pressure hehe). It would be good to explore deep topics in themselves, without all the politicised angles.

To each his own obviously. Eternity means nothing in itself, to no one and not even to science. The concept can only achieve numinosity through the symbolization of art as in Starry Night. Eternity can hardly be referenced as "some-thing or any-thing" by the human brain. There is no meaning to be derived or felt. The feeling of and for eternity can only be psychologically rendered through symbolization as expressed in art not unlike the way nature used to be anthropomorphized within the legions of indigenous gods making the experience personal. It's a prime function of humans to make abstractions personal...a tendency even science can't escape.

How does Starry Night evoke eternity to you? I just see a multiple perspective like Picasso. Instead of taking different angles he seems to be taking different tempos of time. The picture suggests to me a snapshot with a lens in the middle showing with fast motion imagery of stars' apparent travel due to the world's rotation, like this:



Ultimately, if Bruno's logic was right, then we exist within eternity, even if we perceive only a small part of it. Yes, it's long been anthropomorphised but people's personal issues are not that important to me these days. I don't care what people people as long as they are not anti-science. Often today the observations those with experience, study and expertise in an area are routinely treated as being the of the same value as the observations of a layperson. When people can no longer be swayed by reason or evidence then violence is the inevitable result.

[Walker]

Belinda, my focus was on eternity as I don't have the kind of appreciation of art that gleans eternity from those, or any, works. Since it's your ideas, maybe you could start a thread with your particular angle? (No pressure hehe). It would be good to explore deep topics in themselves, without all the politicised angles.

To each his own obviously. Eternity means nothing in itself, to no one and not even to science. The concept can only achieve numinosity through the symbolization of art as in Starry Night. Eternity can hardly be referenced as "some-thing or any-thing" by the human brain. There is no meaning to be derived or felt. The feeling of and for eternity can only be psychologically rendered through symbolization as expressed in art not unlike the way nature used to be anthropomorphized within the legions of indigenous gods making the experience personal. It's a prime function of humans to make abstractions personal...a tendency even science can't escape.

Eternity in that most famous painting lurks in the less spectacular cypress tree, which represents what cannot be imagined.

He put it in the foreground, like a portrait.

The stars are but a transitory amusement that come and go, a red herring.

A backdrop for eternity.

(I wrote a paper on it back when we carried slide-rules to class, although I don't recall a word of it ... well let's say, not all the words in sequence)

[Reflex]

Immanuel Can... I would like you to publically withdraw what you wrote , and make an adequate apology.

Good luck with that, Belinda. Mr Can's argument is based on his own naive misconceptions. For instance: that all atheists insist that god doesn't exist or that relativists insist that there is nothing which is actually true about the world. Neither of which is the case, but Mr Can refuses to accept that he doesn't know what he's talking about, because his entire argument would disappear in a puff of logic.
He has called anyone who fails to agree with him irrational. When that didn't work he accused us of bad faith. Recently, he implied that we believe things we know to be lies. Eventually he gives up on people who still disagree with him and simply ignores them. If he can't 'save' you, he isn't interested in you. He will insult you until you agree with him, or he will condemn you to his version of hell. Nice guy.

In the given examples, Mr. Can makes the mistake of assuming atheists and relativists are, or aim to be, logically consistent. In my experience, nothing is further from the truth.

[uwot]

Immanuel Can... I would like you to publically withdraw what you wrote , and make an adequate apology.

Good luck with that, Belinda. Mr Can's argument is based on his own naive misconceptions. For instance: that all atheists insist that god doesn't exist or that relativists insist that there is nothing which is actually true about the world. Neither of which is the case, but Mr Can refuses to accept that he doesn't know what he's talking about, because his entire argument would disappear in a puff of logic.
He has called anyone who fails to agree with him irrational. When that didn't work he accused us of bad faith. Recently, he implied that we believe things we know to be lies. Eventually he gives up on people who still disagree with him and simply ignores them. If he can't 'save' you, he isn't interested in you. He will insult you until you agree with him, or he will condemn you to his version of hell. Nice guy.

In the given examples, Mr. Can makes the mistake of assuming atheists and relativists are, or aim to be, logically consistent. In my experience, nothing is further from the truth.

Well, if all the atheists and relativists you have met say what Mr Can attributes to them, you have been extremely unfortunate only to have met blithering half-wits. No atheist should waste their time trying to logically defend the assertion 'God does not exist', it can't be done. But then you do not have to assert that to be an atheist; it is quite enough to assert 'I do not believe that god exists', which is logically impervious. As for relativists; if you have been speaking only to people who insist that there is nothing which is actually true about the world, which apparently are the sort of bumpkins that Mr Can mixes with, you again have been extremely unfortunate, since relativism is not about the facts of the world, just as atheism is not about the facts about gods, it is about beliefs.
The facts about the world or of gods, whatever they may be, are the same for everyone. Generally people are quite good at building a logically coherent story based on their beliefs. People who are a bit dim, or just poorly educated, believe they 'know' their story is true.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

How does Starry Night evoke eternity to you? I just see a multiple perspective like Picasso. Instead of taking different angles he seems to be taking different tempos of time. The picture suggests to me a snapshot with a lens in the middle showing with fast motion imagery of stars' apparent travel due to the world's rotation, like this:

I get the eternity in the picture of the Observatory. I like your comparison of different tempos of time with Picasso's multiple perspectives.

I had not thought of multiple perspectives in spacial terms as an approach to eternity but now I get it. Thanks! The camera pic of the Observatory doesn't record the sensuousness or the emotional involvement that Van Gogh's brush strokes do.To photograph anything you need to do a lot of the work a painter does but what the camera work lacks compared with the paint is the directness of the hand work. The intellectual implication of eternity is the same though.
Greta, perhaps living as you do in spacious Oz you don't experience night -time light pollution which afflicts much of England. However do you think that night-time light pollution is positively bad for mental health? I do.

At the risk of being accused of being a Christian and hopelessly unscientific I recommend that hymn, words by Addison, The Spacious Firmament on High and a good tune too, for expressing sheer feeling for the sky.

Similarly Psalm 19 of David The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. David was a great poet. Unfortunately the religious, including presumably the poet himself, have used the feeling of wonder of nature to prove by argument from design that God did it.However I believe that, like the pictures, the poetry also expresses a quite common feeling of eternity and how we often need a vision of it, typically in the night sky. The expressive function of religion is not usually debated by philosophers.

[Dontaskme]

Ultimately, if Bruno's logic was right, then we exist within eternity, even if we perceive only a small part of it. Yes, it's long been anthropomorphised but people's personal issues are not that important to me these days. I don't care what people people as long as they are not anti-science. Often today the observations those with experience, study and expertise in an area are routinely treated as being the of the same value as the observations of a layperson. When people can no longer be swayed by reason or evidence then violence is the inevitable result.

Greta, we are not within eternity, we are eternity looking at itself. Eternity is another word for NOW, and there is only NOW.

Now is just another word for Oneness...herenow nowhere. Being itself, looking at itself...in this CONCEPTION..

Everything is eternity right here now conceiving itself, but never conceived. Everything is no thing, and no thing is every thing, and so negating each other...resulting in illusory reality.

Meaning, life is, but no one is living it.

There was no sacrifice...except in this conception.

What is conceived is not.

What is inconceivable is.