Howard is an Ahole and an Atheist (this correlation is not to be confused with the causal statement that all atheists are Aholes).
Jesus could have been an assassin with his uncanny ability to escape into large crowds.
God being pantheism simply means you'd be re-attributing all observation as "like" god. So why bother? It's an additional attribution that would do nothing to further the discussion.
God being transcendent means he's still an irrelevant concept. If he's this outside our current sphere, what traits could ever be ascribed as his and become influential?
Panentheism suffers the same irrelevant fate insofar as I can tell. To take a first mover concept and then proclaim immanence still doesn't get at characteristics which are at all in addition to the those identified by naturalistic observations.
Basically, sans any 3 of these concepts, the world is the world, just as it always was. These feel peripheral and superfluous.
And what does that leave there to be committed to? No real traits can be ascribed as God's definitive essence that a tenuous commitment to whatever first moved matter makes sense.
Of all of this theology, the only bit that makes sense is when you "hope the bible was right when it says "God is love."" But given the continual ambiguity that is God, this appears a lot more like "I hope in Love." Which from a relatable white-American context sounds a lot more like "I hope in the nature of what I understand love to be."
I still don't understand what you are pursuing in this mono-vera-viva-God that is as impossible to nail down as you say. It feels most like you're using the Aquinas arguments as an ad hoc suspension of the reality that while the conviction outlined in ancient religious texts may be inspiring, an appeal to the pursuit of a transcendent cosmic force in it all exists only to grant you less dissonance when participating in communities these convictions have determined for you as valuable.
So after finishing reading, it appears more that the representation of God present in the Jesus narrative is something you adore, naturally, without effort, and to the point of pursuit, analogous to falling in love with a woman.
It just seems such a stretch to take an adoration of that narrative, prescribe it to whatever a first mover might be, and then give it precedence over other pursuits in life. I mean, this convoluted yet culturally prevalent pattern could be seen as pragmatically beneficial in terms of mental health. But still.. Does that make it utilitarian? Could a logical person execute his own logic for the utility it provides? Isn't that somehow illogical :/.. Does this all come down to ignorance is bliss? Does it really constitute ignorance of it doesn't impede the adaptation of new beliefs? But wouldn't it support ignorance if similar methods of justification are more ignorant yet supported by these notions?
Another great read. These are hidden treasures I should've unburied a while ago.
1 comment:
Howard is an Ahole and an Atheist (this correlation is not to be confused with the causal statement that all atheists are Aholes).
Jesus could have been an assassin with his uncanny ability to escape into large crowds.
God being pantheism simply means you'd be re-attributing all observation as "like" god. So why bother? It's an additional attribution that would do nothing to further the discussion.
God being transcendent means he's still an irrelevant concept. If he's this outside our current sphere, what traits could ever be ascribed as his and become influential?
Panentheism suffers the same irrelevant fate insofar as I can tell. To take a first mover concept and then proclaim immanence still doesn't get at characteristics which are at all in addition to the those identified by naturalistic observations.
Basically, sans any 3 of these concepts, the world is the world, just as it always was. These feel peripheral and superfluous.
And what does that leave there to be committed to? No real traits can be ascribed as God's definitive essence that a tenuous commitment to whatever first moved matter makes sense.
Of all of this theology, the only bit that makes sense is when you "hope the bible was right when it says "God is love."" But given the continual ambiguity that is God, this appears a lot more like "I hope in Love." Which from a relatable white-American context sounds a lot more like "I hope in the nature of what I understand love to be."
I still don't understand what you are pursuing in this mono-vera-viva-God that is as impossible to nail down as you say. It feels most like you're using the Aquinas arguments as an ad hoc suspension of the reality that while the conviction outlined in ancient religious texts may be inspiring, an appeal to the pursuit of a transcendent cosmic force in it all exists only to grant you less dissonance when participating in communities these convictions have determined for you as valuable.
So after finishing reading, it appears more that the representation of God present in the Jesus narrative is something you adore, naturally, without effort, and to the point of pursuit, analogous to falling in love with a woman.
It just seems such a stretch to take an adoration of that narrative, prescribe it to whatever a first mover might be, and then give it precedence over other pursuits in life. I mean, this convoluted yet culturally prevalent pattern could be seen as pragmatically beneficial in terms of mental health. But still.. Does that make it utilitarian? Could a logical person execute his own logic for the utility it provides? Isn't that somehow illogical :/.. Does this all come down to ignorance is bliss? Does it really constitute ignorance of it doesn't impede the adaptation of new beliefs? But wouldn't it support ignorance if similar methods of justification are more ignorant yet supported by these notions?
Another great read. These are hidden treasures I should've unburied a while ago.
Post a Comment