Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing

I'm curious as to how you define "divine." Do you agree with the Merriam Webster dictionary? What makes Man divine? is Man a deity?

Definition of divine
diviner; divinest
1 religion
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God (see 1god 1) or a god (see 1god 2) divine inspiration divine love praying for divine intervention
b : being a deity the divine Savior a divine ruler
c : directed to a deity divine worship
2 a : supremely good : superb The meal was just divine.
b : heavenly, godlike

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:44 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:16 pm I did not BECOME divine... the way I see it: ALL is ALREADY divine. All of us. Born that way... always that way... nothing to atone for or feel wretched about.

Let's talk about that.

In a sense, I do not disagree: we are all born of the Divine so there is nothing to atone for or feel wretched about. (Nick may disagree.) On the other hand, do you deny that there are qualitative variations?

I agree that there are qualitative variations. However, our judgments of those variations are human judgments -- and we go so far as to judge and separate what is and what is not divine. Do you think anything is not divine?

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:44 pm Do you agree or disagree with the following:

"A human being is the relating of a relation relating to itself -- a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and temporal, Freedom and necessity. That is to say, a human being is a localized region of dominant characteristics."

Neither -- as it doesn't seem particularly objectionable -- it is someone else's interpretation based on human concepts -- and it's one way of describing what we are and what we experience. There are many ways of describing that, and there are many surface truths within many descriptions. STILL there are no absolutes because human concepts are the creation of humans... and we're using our limited concepts to try to describe so much that is beyond us. It's only natural that we're going to miss a whole lot because our focus and agendas are so limited at any given point in time.

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:44 pm ...qualitative variations are real as they are inevitable.

Sure! But if you take away our judgments, what is not divine (regardless of the variations)?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:55 pm Philosophers worthy of the name know the harm that is done to the young by making them afraid of sharing or even contemplating the deeper questions of the heart.

WELL WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT??

The difference between you and philosophers who are worthy of the name is that you SEPARATE and ACCUSE WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE that YOU have DEFINED as THE PROBLEM responsible for some specific thing. Doing that LACKS reason... it doesn't reflect clarity or truth... and that's why YOUR philosophy sounds convoluted and delusional to me.

Truth and balance are not welcome in extreme positions! You've shown over and over that you need to use absolute statements while dismissing any broader information that is provided to you. There is no reason that balance cannot exist in ANY viewpoint that strives for truth. This LACK has blown your cover.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:04 pm I'm curious as to how you define "divine."

The closest definition from those you listed would be: supremely good.

I would clarify it further by saying that it is the "magnificence of creation without human judgment". In each and every moment.

Can you imagine that?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:09 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:44 pm ...qualitative variations are real as they are inevitable.

Sure! But if you take away our judgments, what is not divine (regardless of the variations)?

If you take away our judgments, nothing is divine. Without judgment (human or otherwise), the "magnificence of creation" is a meaningless string of words. This is, in fact, the reason I found ACIM to be most objectionable.

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:59 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:09 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:44 pm ...qualitative variations are real as they are inevitable.

Sure! But if you take away our judgments, what is not divine (regardless of the variations)?

If you take away our judgments, nothing is divine. Without judgment (human or otherwise), the "magnificence of creation" is a meaningless string of words. This is, in fact, the reason I found ACIM to be most objectionable.

I see what you're saying... but I don't think it's a judgment to consider that all is divine in its natural, unjudged state. Judgment would be used to "separate". If you want to complain about the WORDS being human words... yes, they are. Sorry, I don't have any other words to use.

Do you think anything is not divine? If it's easier to use the word God... do you think anything is not God? What else would it be?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:38 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:55 pm Philosophers worthy of the name know the harm that is done to the young by making them afraid of sharing or even contemplating the deeper questions of the heart.

WELL WHO DOESN'T KNOW THAT??

The difference between you and philosophers who are worthy of the name is that you SEPARATE and ACCUSE WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE that YOU have DEFINED as THE PROBLEM responsible for some specific thing. Doing that LACKS reason... it doesn't reflect clarity or truth... and that's why YOUR philosophy sounds convoluted and delusional to me.

Truth and balance are not welcome in extreme positions! You've shown over and over that you need to use absolute statements while dismissing any broader information that is provided to you. There is no reason that balance cannot exist in ANY viewpoint that strives for truth. This LACK has blown your cover.

You ask “WHO DOESN’T KNOW THAT?”

The philosophy of Secular Humanism doesn’t know that.

The difference between you and philosophers who are worthy of the name is that you SEPARATE and ACCUSE WHOLE GROUPS OF PEOPLE that YOU have DEFINED as THE PROBLEM responsible for some specific thing. Doing that LACKS reason... it doesn't reflect clarity or truth... and that's why YOUR philosophy sounds convoluted and delusional to me.

Read the following typical definition of secular humanism. How do the essential principles answer the questions of the heart? It considers them irrelevant and science will satisfy Man’s need for meaning. This is a spirit killer and I recognize the attitude supporting it easily can lead to metaphysical repression. So yes it is the problem


https://www.thoughtco.com/secularism-as ... phy-250856

Philosophy of Secularism
The philosophy of secularism has been explained in a number of different ways, although they all have certain important similarities. George Jacob Holyoake, the originator of the term "secularism," defined it most explicitly in his book English Secularism:
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

The improvement of this life by material means.
That science is the available Providence of man.
That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:29 am Read the following typical definition of secular humanism.

Okay, I read it AND I read the link you provided... and OH MY GOD!!! Do you have ANY INKLING of how much you are reading into all of this? What kind of person accuses people of having a secular philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

I always guessed that you were convoluting things based on limited information, but WOW... this is off the charts! Now I see how fabricated your platform is.

I've suspected that much of your preaching has been self-serving. If you're truly concerned about the spirits of youth, how much time and energy have you invested in person with youth, focusing on that with them? I've invested 4 years in a program for at-risk youth, inspiring them to reach their OWN highest potential and dreams, as well as modeling the possibilities outside of society's standards and rules. That doesn't fit the characteristics you've labelled me with, does it -- and I think that's because you have been making up so much stuff (to serve yourself and oppose others) for so long, Nick, that you cannot accept, and don't even know, where it ends and truth begins.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:20 am
I see what you're saying... but I don't think it's a judgment to consider that all is divine in its natural, unjudged state. Judgment would be used to "separate". If you want to complain about the WORDS being human words... yes, they are. Sorry, I don't have any other words to use.

The highlighted is meaningless: "Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is special." (Dash, from The Incredibles)

Do you think anything is not divine? If it's easier to use the word God... do you think anything is not God? What else would it be?

Yes. To deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation amounts to a denial of the very concept of what's divine. Here's a link that might be of interest.

Perceiving the Infinite

The answer is that while God Himself is Ein Sof, He has created a place of interaction between Himself and humanity that is, for our sakes, bounded and defined. This place is called hanhaga -- and this is the realm within which we can make use of our understanding and knowledge.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:01 am Do you have ANY INKLING of how much you are reading into all of this? What kind of person accuses people of having a secular philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

Frustrating, isn't it? Now you know how theists feel.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:20 am I don't think it's a judgment to consider that all is divine in its natural, unjudged state.

The highlighted is meaningless: "Saying everyone is special is just another way of saying no one is special."

I'm not saying everyone is special. I'm saying all is perfect as it is (divine/God)... when our human judgments are not applied to it.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:20 am Do you think anything is not divine? If it's easier to use the word God... do you think anything is not God? What else would it be?

Yes. To deny the possibility of God's volitional self-differentiation and self-limitation amounts to a denial of the very concept of what's divine.

That's still God. What is NOT God?

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am

Lacewing to Nick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:20 am Do you have ANY INKLING of how much you are reading into all of this? What kind of person accuses people of having a secular philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

Frustrating, isn't it? Now you know how theists feel.

I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Are you suggesting that non-theists accuse theists of a philosophy that the non-theists have specifically and rigidly pieced together? I think that theists identify their own philosophy. Please explain what you're referring to.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 am
I'm not saying everyone is special. I'm saying all is perfect as it is... when our judgments are not applied to it.

"Perfect" in that scenario is meaningless.

That's still God. What is NOT God?

It's not symmetrical: God is everything, but not everything is God.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am

Lacewing to Nick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:20 am Do you have ANY INKLING of how much you are reading into all of this? What kind of person accuses people of having a secular philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

Frustrating, isn't it? Now you know how theists feel.

I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Are you suggesting that non-theists accuse theists of a philosophy that the non-theists have specifically and rigidly pieced together? I think that theists identify their own philosophy. Please explain what you're referring to.

What kind of person accuses people of having a religious philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

See it, now? I changed only one word.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 am I'm saying all is perfect as it is... when our judgments are not applied to it.

"Perfect" in that scenario is meaningless.

So, you really can't see what I'm trying to express -- because you're busy picking at the words. Okay, done with that.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 am

That's still God. What is NOT God?

It's not symmetrical: God is everything, but not everything is God.

Please explain how that works.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am Frustrating, isn't it? Now you know how theists feel.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 am I'm not seeing what you're referring to. Are you suggesting that non-theists accuse theists of a philosophy that the non-theists have specifically and rigidly pieced together? I think that theists identify their own philosophy. Please explain what you're referring to.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:15 am What kind of person accuses people of having a religious philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

See it, now? I changed only one word.

Aren't you just repeating what I already suggested above that you were saying? I don't see this as a common occurrence against theists -- as I said, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their own philosophy. Then non-theists challenge that.

It seems more common for theists to inaccurately define what non-theists are. I'm guessing you disagree.

Reflex,

I see that your previous response to me did not include the additional edit I had added in parenthesis:

I'm saying all is perfect as it is (divine/God)... when our human judgments are not applied to it.

You may still think it's meaningless -- which, of course, doesn't mean that it is.

Also, concerning this:

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am ...not everything is God.

Who is capable of determining what is and isn't?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:17 am I'm saying all is perfect as it is... when our judgments are not applied to it....

So, you really can't see what I'm trying to express -- because you're busy picking at the words. Okay, done with that.

Perhaps, but I really am trying to understand. Actually, I think I do understand what you're saying because I used to believe the same thing. I eventually came to accept that Reality as I experience is two-fold: one is finite, temporal and necessary; the other is infinite, eternal and free. A tadpole such as myself must live as a tadpole until it become a frog. There's no sense in pretending this tadpole is a frog. Make-believe can only be a hindrance to my growth. Feeling wretched or needing to atone are also detrimental. Yes, in a certain sense "God's in his heaven and all's right with the world," but that point of view is only fully accessible to the infinite, eternal and free. And although those qualities are in me, for the most part my existence is finite, temporal and necessary.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:35 am
Please explain how that works.

It's panentheism: which literally means everything in God. There are many useful analogies, but the one I use most often is that of prism: God (or, if you prefer, perfection) is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism and we live in the spectrum of its light. It's all light, but it's not the Light. It's not a new or alien concept. The Bible puts it this way:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Aren't you just repeating what I already suggested above that you were saying? I don't see this as a common occurrence against theists -- as I said, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their own philosophy. Then non-theists challenge that.

You're right, theists are pretty vocal in identifying their philosophy, but non-theists tend to be elusive about theirs so there is seldom an equitable give-and-take. The discussion with Greta is a good example.

It seems more common for theists to inaccurately define what non-theists are. I'm guessing you disagree.

You guess right.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:32 am Reflex,

I see that your previous response to me did not include the additional edit I had added in parenthesis:



You may still think it's meaningless -- which, of course, doesn't mean that it is.

Correct.
I don't particularly like this translation, but I agree with the Tao Te Ching which says:

We experience beauty because of ugliness.
We experience good because of bad.

Similarly, existence and non-existence give rise to one another.
Difficult and easy,
Long and short,
High and low,
The music and the silence.
All cannot exist without the other.
They are two sides of the same coin.

This is why the sage lives by non-action, teaches without words.
All around her, the Ten Thousand Things are created, yet she claims no credit or reward –
So that Tao may flow through her and last forever.

Reflex wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:52 am ...not everything is God.

Who is capable of determining what is and isn't?

Every being of normal mind.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. -- Philippians 2:12 King James Version (KJV)

The Buddha's final words were something quite similar with many and varied translations.

Lacewing

Okay, I read it AND I read the link you provided... and OH MY GOD!!! Do you have ANY INKLING of how much you are reading into all of this? What kind of person accuses people of having a secular philosophy that YOU, yourself, have specifically and rigidly pieced together so that you can OPPOSE people under false pretenses?

I don’t accuse people. I discuss ideas. You are accusing me. The Secular Intolerance thread showed how hostile secular intolerance as a philosophy actually is. It is intolerant of words it defines as bad such as God and religion. But since the words have no objective meaning for a secularist there is nothing realistic to hate other than personal conceptions of these words. This is classic bigotry; an attack against an imaginary self created enemy. Christianity is condemned. But what is Christianity and what is a Christian? Who knows and who cares. Just hate your own conceptions

Do you disagree with this definition of secularism:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable.

I oppose the philosophy as harmful and unrealistic. Secularists are intolerant of people who value the idea of an eternal unchanging God within which eternal values necessary to sustain universal purpose exist as ideas or forms according to Plato which involve and devolve into qualities of consciousness within our great universe..

I've suspected that much of your preaching has been self-serving. If you're truly concerned about the spirits of youth, how much time and energy have you invested in person with youth, focusing on that with them? I've invested 4 years in a program for at-risk youth, inspiring them to reach their OWN highest potential and dreams, as well as modeling the possibilities outside of society's standards and rules. That doesn't fit the characteristics you've labelled me with, does it -- and I think that's because you have been making up so much stuff (to serve yourself and oppose others) for so long, Nick, that you cannot accept, and don't even know, where it ends and truth begins.

I don’t know what you are involved in. I do know that secularism in its multitude of forms including secularized religion has resulted in many at risk youths. Without the ability to cope with life nothing human is possible so help begins with allowing for a healthy personality. I am not referring to these unfortunates but to the young who cope with life but sense something more that is not understood and condemned by those around them. They are attracted to what allows them to experience more than societal purposes. This must be hated by secularism which limits human purpose to worldly considerations. It isn't too inspiring to be surrounded by so much hatred and condemnation towards what a person feels as normal. But yet it is proudly inflicted on the young during the process of what is called secular "education."