Deism in the Dock

And face everlasting torture if we keep our options open.Such a romantic.

Not at all. I merely used the words 'everlasting torture' to describe everlasting torture. That is the doctrine.As you know, because you take it as a given in your next statement: This is fantasy.If anything of the sort were true, we would see a correlation in the world between those people who are happy and who profess Christianity, and between those who feel miserable and who profess any other belief.This is not, in reality, what we find. We find that people who hold other beliefs are as likely to be happy, well adjusted, kind, truthful, and content as Christians are, and perhaps even more so. The idea will be easier to 'understand' once it is shown to be something more than a sectarian myth. Dropping the gun would be a start.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And I must have hit the bull's eye, because nothing in your post addresses addresses the points I made. You just typed up a little homily that talks all around them.Case in point: Word game. My point stands.If it's true that non-Christians are in 'eternal torment' right now, as you said earlier, we should see lots of tortured-looking people when we look around. We should find a significant correlation between that look and the profession of beliefs other than yours. We do not. Non-Christians are just as likely to be happy and joyful, or morose and miserable, as the people at your church on any given day. I knew you'd go for the flip-flop.One post ago you told me Christians are on Easy Street while their neighbours live in 'eternal torture.' I said no evidence in the real world supports this fantasy. Now you say that, because the world is such a mess, Christians are the ones tortured while their neighbours live on Easy Street.It's just another rationalization. If Christians look happier than people around them, you have your rationalization to explain why. If they look less happy than people around them, you have your rationalization to explain that, too. Anything to help keep the fantasy alive that your own sectarian club is special... when no evidence exists in the real world to support this.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It's worth mentioning that most gods in traditional Asian religions are human beings who, by living exemplary lives on earth. are granted revered immortal status. They are individually assigned responsibility in an area of nature or human affairs (childbirth, travel, scholarship, etc). Adherents with concerns in those areas then address the appropriate supernatural figure.Even though these Asian deities are called gods, they function in a manner corresponding more closely to saints in Christian tradition. Of course, the similarity of the hierarchy of saints and angels with polytheistic belief systems has been long noted. It hinges mainly on terminology: do you have one god ordering lesser supernatural beings around, or a supreme god ordering lesser gods around?History shows that even professed monotheists often decide it is not good for the god to be alone.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I understand. My comment represented a marginal note--'Oh BTW'--that wasn't intended to distract anyone from an excellent point.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

On the contrary: I said reality is absolute. Whoa, Nellie.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

And the distinction is neither here nor there as far as your argument is concerned.First I pointed out that people of many beliefs are as likely as Christians are to know happiness. You respond by saying that happiness is not as important as joy. I respond by saying that people of many faiths are as likely as Christians to know joy.In no case have you demonstrated that people of other faiths are, as you told me, already enduring 'eternal torture.' No evidence exists of this torture you mention.The torture is a story you have learned. This is is all storytelling.The myth of the 'joyful' Christian and the 'tortured' unbeliever has a long history among evangelicals. It's the kind of drama that fills tent meetings. It's the kind of story you and your church friends tell each other when you get together. You know it by heart.Stories like this are easy to believe while you're hanging around the club house. They have their uses in building a sense of cohesion and morale. If the people outside the club don't really look all that tortured, well, maybe they just don't know they are. Or maybe they don't show they are. Something. Anything. Reality isn't what matters most here. The most important thing is to keep telling the story.When you come to the boards people ask you for evidence and arguments. You respond by reciting all the preachy stories you have learned. You wonder that the stories aren't more persuasive. They aren't, though, for the same reasons that a ghost story is not persuasive away from the camp fire.Reciting a clubhouse story is not the same thing as showing something true about the real world. Clubhouse stories are told to reassure club members that they are in the right clubhouse. They only persuade the convinced.If you want to persuade anyone else, you have to start with reality.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : title.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That's a fair assessment, provided the word Deism is very broadly defined indeed. These beliefs not only reject the micromanager, they reject the deity.By that I mean a 'deity' as one is most often pictured: a conscious being possessing an ego that brings everything about as an act of volition. Deism moves away from making concrete images of its deity, but much of the language people employ in describing Deism still defaults toward personality. God 'sets up laws' or 'sets things in motion' then keeps 'hands off' and 'lets' things happen. We learn about this God by studying 'works'. It's a picture that gives the deity a more phlegmatic personality than most. But there's still a man behind the curtain, even if he's sitting back with his feet up.Taoism and Buddhism say Ultimate Reality exits. A unity exists behind everything, and this unity is the source of all the diverse phenomena we see. Reality unites all opposites because all opposites necessarily reside in it.But both say it does little good to talk about Ultimate Reality. To do so is to start making mental pictures of UR as one thing to the exclusion of some other thing. We start talking as if it were conscious (therefore not unconscious) and as if it were active (therefore not passive). We impose limits on what reality can be--and as soon we do that we are no longer talking about reality. We now talk only about our idea of reality. Human ideas are something less. Our ideas are finite. Language is finite.So if we value reality itself it's best to be aware of our own limits and avoid growing attached to one picture over another. This is true even when pictures take the form of your most revered teacher, your most adored image of the divine. 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.'This is why Buddhism speaks of UR as 'no-thing'. People often mistake this language for nihilism but it isn't. Buddhism says the ultimate unity is real. This thing exists; it's just not a thing. It's not limited to some object with boundaries that you can imagine. If you want to contemplate it, you do well to clear your head of all pictures of things. This lets UR remain truly limitless in your imagination. To the human mind this means holding to a picture of 'nothing' because as soon as you picture a 'thing' you impose limits.But this 'nothing' is, of course, everything.Taoism is content to leave UR a mystery. It advises trusting UR, not any word or picture people make to describe it, and getting on with your life. The good news is that, even though we can't say anything final about UR, we can observe its effects in the phenomena around us. Awareness of the ground of all existence helps us navigate our path.As it happens, this perspective accords well with the scientific approach.It's worth mentioning that this approach has a long history in Hinduism as well. Behind the pictures lies an ultimate unity you can't name or even comprehend. All the pictures are masks. It's the revelation given to Arjuna at the end of the Gita when he learns that there's a lot more going on with 'Krishna' than just a god named Krishna, meaningful as that picture was to him.So it's interesting. As a philosophical Taoist I have trouble even answering this question, which was posed early in my participation here.

You are (pick one):
A. atheist
B. agnostic
C. theist

I can't pick one because I'm all three. I'm 'atheist' because I don't believe in a deity of the kind most people mean when they say 'theism.' I'm 'agnostic' because I admit I don't know, can't know, anything final about UR. I'm 'theist' because I do believe UR exists and find plenty of meaning for my life in that.You trust reality. You love it even. You order your life according to it. You just don't claim, with your short-lived, peanut-sized human mind, to comprehend it. You let it surround you, you breathe it in, and you feel that as grace enough.And with that, I guess this post has come full circle--back round to the kinship you suggest.The kinship is one of attitude. One of approach. You go about your business, learning and growing. And you trust.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.