|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Get To Know God (GTKG) 101 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It starts off right away telling you that as soon as you invent a word for it, you are no longer talking about reality, but about your idea of it. This puts everything that follows into proper persective. All words are limited. Absolutely. To hope to ever get to know GOD you must first throw away God. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
To hope to ever get to know GOD you must first throw away God. There's no way to get rid of "preconceptions" oreven "conceptions," "pre-" or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Jar:
To hope to ever get to know GOD you must first throw away God. robinrohan:
There's no way to get rid of "preconceptions" or even "conceptions," "pre-" or not. Preconceptions can be gotten rid of, or at least acknowledged. Conceptions can be kept consciously open and flexible. Scientists know how this challenge works. Lao Tse, after saying how useless it is to talk about the ultimate reality, talks about it for a little while. It is like water, he says; like a path, like a supple plant, like nothing at all--colorless, odorless, tasteless. But he has already warned you at the outset that no words will catch it. The whole enterprise is a bit of a joke, he advises, on all of us. The ancient Hebrews prohibited making solid images of YHWH but they used plenty of verbal images. Wind, warrior, lover, shepherd, king, artist, darkness, light. The fact that the images were verbal, though, gave them a certain plasticity. Devotees could move from one image to the other, adapting each to describe different sides of a reality that was (as the wise took care to remind everyone) ultimately undescribable. ”But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Lao Tse, after saying how useless it is to talk about the ultimate reality, talks about it for a little while. It is like water, he says; like a path, like a supple plant, like nothing at all--colorless, odorless, tasteless. But he has already warned you at the outset that no words will catch it. The whole enterprise is a bit of a joke, he advises, on all of us. Is this ultimate reality a being or a thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Is this ultimate reality a being or a thing? It is what it is. The rest is how we conceive it. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Quote box code. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is what it is. Yes, but it's important for us to know if ultimate reality is a being or a thing. If it's a being, theism is true. If it's a thing, atheism is true. So the distinction is crucial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Lao Tse, after saying how useless it is to talk about the ultimate reality, talks about it for a little while. It is like water, he says; like a path, like a supple plant, like nothing at all--colorless, odorless, tasteless. But he has already warned you at the outset that no words will catch it. The whole enterprise is a bit of a joke, he advises, on all of us. He might as well have tried to describe an orgasm. One can sympathise with his problem.
The ancient Hebrews prohibited making solid images... Perhaps. But they gave us something beyond measure despite the admitted paltriness of descriptive language. They invariably described the Ultimate Reality as 'He'. A giant leap for paltry language by any measure Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
iano writes:
They invaribly described the Ultimate Reality as 'He'. A giant leap for paltry language by any measure. It is no leap forward for language at all. As soon as we say 'he' we say 'not she' and 'not it'--and that lands us back with the same problem. We have put limits on the limitless. Lao Tse's language gave him an advantage here. It has only one pronoun. The ultimate reality can be he, she, and it all at once. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
They invariably described the Ultimate Reality as 'He'. Just a footnote: the ancient Hebrews did not do this 'invariably.'And that's okay, given the limitations of language. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
robinrohan:
Yes, but it's important for us to know if ultimate reality is a being or a thing. As being and thing are not opposites, this is a false choice. A thing has being. A being is a thing. You can say 'There is a human being over there, and a human being is a remarkable thing.' Have you contradicted yourself?I can say 'Let's talk about the universe and everything in it.' Have I overlooked the beings? The opposite of being is nonbeing. The opposite of thing is nothing. But even accurate terms have limits. As soon as I call reality 'being' I've said 'not nonbeing.' As soon as I call reality 'thing' I've said 'not nothing.' The instant I say one or the other I take items off the table. The reality I talk about is not the ultimate reality. Reality includes oblivion. Nonexistence. Extinction, destruction, annihilation. We observe this. Reality thus includes the things--the nothings, more like--that we understand by these terms. Intangible and elusive, yet within is image. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
A thing has being. A being is a thing. By "being" I mean an entity that possesses consciousness. "Things" I'm defining as entities that do not possess consciousness. It has to be one or the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
By "being" I mean an entity that possesses consciousness. "Things" I'm defining as entities that do not possess consciousness. It has to be one or the other. Are you one or the other? Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Are you one or the other? Yes, I'm a being, you're a being, and probably certain animals are beings, like raccoons and cats. Other animals are probably things, like worms and beetles. And then there are those entities that we are fairly certain are things, such as trees, planets, and electrons. It's a way of classifying reality that is important to philosophy and religion. You could sort entities out in other ways if you wanted to. You could classify them according to color, for example, or according to size, but such schemes would not seem to be very helpful in regard to helping us form our worldviews. If we just say there's an "ultimate reality" and we don't what it is and if we try to figure out what it is, then we falsify it because we think in terms of categories, we have not made any progress. Why even bother calling It or He or whatever an "ultimate" reality? We might as well just call it reality, unless you are suggesting there are realities that are not ultimate. What would that mean? That such entities are half-real but not all the way real, but there is Something that is all-the-way real? This is why I say that these Eastern religions are steeped in vagueness.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 46. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
Yes, I'm a being, you're a being, and probably certain animals are beings, like raccoons and cats.[....] This does not answer my question. You brought up the subject of consciousness. You said this was the important issue for you. You insisted that ultimate reality has to do one or the other. It has to possess consciousness or unconsciousness. So please answer my question. Do you possess consciousness? Or unconsciousness?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 46. AdminPD Edited by Archer Opterix, : Clarity. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Do you possess consciousness? Yes. Regularly.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein. See Message 46. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024