Was seeking God more pleasant before literalism?

[thedoc]

To me a religion would involve some kind of worship or reverence of the supernatural element of that belief system. Just believing is some supernatural element would not be enough.

Well agreed...but I think it's even more than that. For you see, one could worship Molech, who said "Burn your children for me," or Pharaoh, who said, "Throw your male children into the river," or Jesus who said, "Let the children come to me, and don't prevent them; for of such is the Kingdom of God." But the mere fact of "worshipping" something doesn't tell us which to do. And any god that wants either of the former is certainly not the God who says the latter.

It seems to be very important that you state that there are many different descriptions of different Gods, and many of them contradictory. I do not disagree with this, and I accept that different religions have different interpretations of who and what their God is, there is no disagreement here. I am only stating that a religion has a God that is worshiped or revered in some way.

[thedoc]

Well, it's a kind of "potato-potahto" thing, if you know what I mean.

You can call it "soul extinction" or "reabsorption," or whatever, but it's an attempt to get at a single idea. In fact, Buddhists often resort to analogy, since precise labels are hard in regard to Nirvana.

For example, they use the example of a candle being blown out, or of a water droplet dispersing into the ocean -- one minute the flame has distinct identity and then next it doesn't; one minute the water droplet is itself, and the next it is gone into a greater oneness. In the same way, the personal identity or "soul" is present, and the next it's gone into the Great Oneness...

Is that better than "extinction"? Hard to say. It's the end of desire, which is the thing Buddhists posit as the problem with the world, and it's the transcending of materiality, which is also supposed to be good; but it's also the end of the individual identity...so...?

I would mostly agree, I suppose I'm just trying to discover whether you are saying potato or potahto?

The only thing I would disagree with is the candle example, in that rather than being blown out the candle is thrown into a larger fire and becomes part of that flame. I do like the water droplet and think that is a much more accurate description of the teaching.

[thedoc]

Now to the second message...

...it is still my understanding that the one-mind was superior to and something to which the Buddhist aspired to be joined with. In my understanding that would place the one-mind above everything else much like the Gods of other religions.

Again, you've got a similarity, but not a profound one. It's not sufficiently informative to be useful. What sort of "God" is this "One-Mind"? Is it a "Force"? Is it a Person? (No, I believe is the answer in Buddhism) Is it a fragmented unity, like the Many-gods-in-One of Hinduism? Is it the monolithic, singular Allah, who famously "has no son"? Or is it the Triune God of Christians?

These are mutually-exclusive possibilities, in many cases, so it's got to be one or the other, or else none of the above; but as Aristotle showed, it cannot be all of them at once. (Law of Non-Contradiction)

So again, to say, "They all have some conception of a god or gods" is true but is not telling us much...certainly not telling us they're all essentially the same in core value.

I would only question this one point, the law of non-contradiction. I agree that it applies to the human thought process and logical argument as presented by people. I would question why should we expect God or the universe to behave according to human practice. I will take the liberty of quoting scripture here,
Isaiah 55-8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
Which I take to mean that God does not behave according to human expectations. What to us may appear as mutually-exclusive, may not be to God. One other point, in my arguments and statements I do not define God, because to do so I would be putting God in a box and I don't claim to be qualified.

[Immanuel Can]

I accept that different religions have different interpretations of who and what their God is, there is no disagreement here. I am only stating that a religion has a God that is worshiped or revered in some way.

Fair enough.

I guess the question is, "What do we conclude from that?" And all I'm suggesting is what we *cannot* conclude: namely, that one interpretation is as good as another, which I suggest on the basis of the basic laws of reason. However, you then add,

I would only question this one point, the law of non-contradiction.

Well, to understand Aristotle's three laws is pretty much to agree with them automatically. The reason I say this is that it requires reason to grasp them, and they describe the parameters of reason itself. One needs reason even to criticize reason. If one provides reasons why reason is unreliable, then one has killed all the strength of one's own argument. There's no way to reason out that reason doesn't work.

Either it's reasonable to believe rational propositions of all kinds, or it's simply not; but if it's not, then one cannot use reason to say so, and be consistent therein. So the three laws are merely descriptions of what one simply *cannot* avoid doing if one is using reason. Seen that way, there's even less sense to saying "I disagree with the laws of reason" then there is to saying "I disagree with the law of gravity." Neither is the kind of thing one can "disagree" about. Disagreement itself is a rational process -- well, unless it's mindless cavilling -- but I think that's not what you do or wish to defend, right?

I would question why should we expect God or the universe to behave according to human practice. I will take the liberty of quoting scripture here,
Isaiah 55-8
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
Which I take to mean that God does not behave according to human expectations.

Good point. I agree.

But of course we're going to have to interpret what's meant by "ways" there. Does it entail different methods and purposes ( I think yes), or does it also have to imply irrationality on God's part (I would say we have no reason to think so). Is God promising he will behave wildly, stupidly or absurdly? Or is He saying, "If I tried to tell you what I'm doing, then with your limited mind you would not get it"? I think the latter.

I say that because the God of Torah is a very rational Law-giving kind of God. He is also, unlike, say the Eastern gods, no denigrator of reason. For He says, "Come let us reason together...though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as wool." That's in the same book, Isaiah 1:18. Then in both the Torah and New Testament, He says, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart...and all your mind." This is a God of Law and reason -- quite different from the irrational gods of the animists or ancient Greeks and Romans, or the anti-rational religions of the East, which emphasize "emptying" not filling the mind. So putting Isaiah into the context of the whole of the book, rather than grabbing a lone word like "ways" and making something out of that, I think we get a picture of a very reason-loving God.

What to us may appear as mutually-exclusive, may not be to God.

I think that can be true of non-contradictory propositions: but I don't see -- at least in Christianity and Judaism -- that it can include genuinely contradictory ones. As I say, the God of Torah relies heavily on appeals to reason, and gives laws Himself. He even binds himself to covenants. Now, in Eastern thought, the way to get to "the god" is through unreason -- through denial of physical reality and emptying oneself of all desire and attachment to it. But this is nowhere posited as the way to God in Judaism or Christianity. Again you see the differences.

One other point, in my arguments and statements I do not define God, because to do so I would be putting God in a box and I don't claim to be qualified.

Oh, I'm not either. Fair enough.

But here's my question: If the Supreme Being is really "supreme," can he define Himself? And if His supremacy entails the ability to define himself, can He express that definition in such a way as to make Himself understood?

If we concede the term "supreme" to Him, I cannot see why we would think either thing would not be entailed. Can you?

[ReliStuPhD]

I am only stating that a religion has a God that is worshiped or revered in some way.

This is a subject of much debate in the field of Religious Studies for many reasons, not least of which is the philosophical baggage that "god" carries with it. Though we are still far from consensus, it does appear to be generally accepted that to consider something to be a "religion" does not by necessity entail a "god." I'm happy to go into more depth, but I just wanted to weigh in with how "the field" approaches this question (or tries to).

[thedoc]

Oh, I'm not either. Fair enough.

But here's my question: If the Supreme Being is really "supreme," can he define Himself? And if His supremacy entails the ability to define himself, can He express that definition in such a way as to make Himself understood?

If we concede the term "supreme" to Him, I cannot see why we would think either thing would not be entailed. Can you?

As you say, fair enough.

I once read a story that equated the imperfections of the Bible as God's best efforts to relate what is not understandable to us in a way that is understandable to the imperfect human mind. I like that interpretation and perhaps that is where I am in all this, I can see the problems and contradictions but I'm not ready to leave just yet, or to abandon what I believe.

As far as "can He express that definition in such a way as to make Himself understood?" perhaps the failing is not with God but with Man. I know it's a cop-out but it's the best I can do right now.

[thedoc]

I am only stating that a religion has a God that is worshiped or revered in some way.

This is a subject of much debate in the field of Religious Studies for many reasons, not least of which is the philosophical baggage that "god" carries with it. Though we are still far from consensus, it does appear to be generally accepted that to consider something to be a "religion" does not by necessity entail a "god." I'm happy to go into more depth, but I just wanted to weigh in with how "the field" approaches this question (or tries to).

I don't claim to be as well read as others may be, I've been doing this for a long time and much of it is impressions from a long time ago. If you review some of my other posts you will see that my definition of God is very broad, at one time someone accused me of having a definition of God so broad that it could include Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I thought "Well I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist, do I?" A final thought, I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the Field's thoughts on this subject, I much prefer the ideas of those involved in the conversation, and that now includes you.

[ReliStuPhD]

I don't claim to be as well read as others may be, I've been doing this for a long time and much of it is impressions from a long time ago. If you review some of my other posts you will see that my definition of God is very broad, at one time someone accused me of having a definition of God so broad that it could include Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I thought "Well I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist, do I?" A final thought, I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the Field's thoughts on this subject, I much prefer the ideas of those involved in the conversation, and that now includes you.

Fair enough, just know that as a member of "the field," I represent it.

(And I get your point about "God." I do the same. It still may prove more restrictive than "religion" will allow.)

[Immanuel Can]

As far as "can He express that definition in such a way as to make Himself understood?" perhaps the failing is not with God but with Man. I know it's a cop-out but it's the best I can do right now.

No, that's a real concern. Even if the Supreme Being could speak, what if we couldn't hear?

But then, how would a Supreme Being be unable to take account of that fact and deal with it? If He could not, would "supreme" fit him as a descriptor anymore? But hey, we explain difficult things to kids sometimes, and we adults are pretty good at reducing explanations to their level, and making adjustments for their limitations. Would we expect the Supreme Being to be incapable of such an accommodation to our needs?

[Immanuel Can]

A final thought, I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the Field's thoughts on this subject, I much prefer the ideas of those involved in the conversation, and that now includes you.

Yeah, I like talking with you too. And ReliStuPhD, who is actually "Not-at-all-stuphd."

[ReliStuPhD]

And ReliStuPhD, who is actually "Not-at-all-stuphd."

THANK YOU! Someone finally got the "double" in the "double entendre."

[thedoc]

And ReliStuPhD, who is actually "Not-at-all-stuphd."

THANK YOU! Someone finally got the "double" in the "double entendre."

Actually I.C. and I had picked up on that here viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13785&start=30 I suppose you missed it. 7th and 8th post from the top.

[thedoc]

I don't claim to be as well read as others may be, I've been doing this for a long time and much of it is impressions from a long time ago. If you review some of my other posts you will see that my definition of God is very broad, at one time someone accused me of having a definition of God so broad that it could include Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I thought "Well I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist, do I?" A final thought, I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the Field's thoughts on this subject, I much prefer the ideas of those involved in the conversation, and that now includes you.

Fair enough, just know that as a member of "the field," I represent it.

(And I get your point about "God." I do the same. It still may prove more restrictive than "religion" will allow.)

From what I have read, most religions have a definition of God that is more restrictive than mine.

And sorry if my comments about "the field" were offensive to one "in the field", I always considered someone "in the field" to be a farmer.

[ReliStuPhD]

And ReliStuPhD, who is actually "Not-at-all-stuphd."

THANK YOU! Someone finally got the "double" in the "double entendre."

Actually I.C. and I had picked up on that here viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13785&start=30 I suppose you missed it. 7th and 8th post from the top.

Yeah, I missed that. And yes, it was intentional. Sort of a way of tempering the potentially haughty nature of "PhD" with a bit of self-deprecating humor.

[ReliStuPhD]

I don't claim to be as well read as others may be, I've been doing this for a long time and much of it is impressions from a long time ago. If you review some of my other posts you will see that my definition of God is very broad, at one time someone accused me of having a definition of God so broad that it could include Invisible Pink Unicorns, and I thought "Well I don't know that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist, do I?" A final thought, I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the Field's thoughts on this subject, I much prefer the ideas of those involved in the conversation, and that now includes you.

Fair enough, just know that as a member of "the field," I represent it.

(And I get your point about "God." I do the same. It still may prove more restrictive than "religion" will allow.)

From what I have read, most religions have a definition of God that is more restrictive than mine.

Fair enough. I can guess at the expanse of your definition of "god" (I won't be surprised to find it's similar to mine). That said, Religious Studies (where it does things right in my opinion) tries to avoid what we might term a "theological" take on the nature of "God." As such, something has to be done with, e.g., the Confucianist. It is in that respect that "god" is too restrictive. As in, a generally-accepted definition of "god" as being one, non-illusory, etc. I imagine we'll tease this out more at some point, but of the moment I think it's sufficient to lay it out as I've done here. That is, my definition of "religion" will tend towards a direction that is more generic and doesn't use words that could be misconstrued by a third party, etc. (Hope that makes sense.)

And sorry if my comments about "the field" were offensive to one "in the field", I always considered someone "in the field" to be a farmer.

Not at all. I have my own qualms with "the field," but do feel a certain responsibility to represent it fairly.