Pantheism

[unriggable]

I don't get what your definition of sin is. In everybody's mind, sins are different things. Homosexuality, adultery, greed, yabadayabadayabada.

I mean, to say there is such a thing as absolute sin is to say there is an ultimatum on things like emotion, and a definitive right and wrong, and that's where we all differ with each other.

[Nobuo]

You're exactly right, unriggable, in your assumption that sin is subjective if and only if, however, the fundamental order the universe displays does not have purpose and is merely incidental (see first page if you already haven't). I do not believe that homosexuality is any more of a crime than heterosexuality, or anything of that nature; I do not seek to quantify the magnitude of sin. I simply say that if order has purpose, it is a logical conclusion to believe that all desire is incorrect behavior, because we have established the fact that something known as correct or true behavior could possibly exist.

It is only faith that can lead us to the conclusion that order has purpose, but it is also a leap of faith to assume that all order is incidental and directionless. I do not think that I am making too large of a wild assertion here, suggs, I only point out that you know the universe exists, you know that universe has order and natural laws. If you assume nothing outside the universe exists while also assuming that the universe has purpose, the only logical conclusion is the universe possesses passionless, desireless sentience.

Finally, Nate, I don't see how you who have already argued on the sin of neglect through inaction could possibly believe that the blood of humanity would not be on your hands in the example I offered. If you look carefully at the tenets of Christianity I'm sure you can find some evidence that suggests your first responsibility in life is to God. As far as the hypothetical desire free man, in examining correct action, we must examine impossible ideals because humanity is hopelessly corrupted by desire. Again, I make the claim that he would act on intuition for intuition's sake, something much more reliable and objectively sound then the sympathy you advocate for so strongly. The strength of God's character is never harmed by acts of desire, Nate, but the domain over which his rule extends is shrunken. You indeed have no part in Godhood now Nate and it is extremely unlikely that you will ever gain such divinity, instead fading away after your death. But you do have the potential to gain divinity, as I claim Jesus did, once you remove your free will entirely. In the mean time you can spend your time ensuring that God is as perfect as possible with no desire for self advancement at all.

[MeDeFe]

Nobuo, I think you mean 'tenets' and not 'tenants'

[Nobuo]

Well then so be it--it is fixed. I do not claim to have complete knowledge of the English language. Once again, I am sorry everyone for the troubles my forum illiteracy has caused with regards to this poll matter. I am extremely far from being perfect.

To further expand upon my argument, Nate. I think you are having problems in that you are not questioning why this apathetic man of yours is apathetic. If he is so because of selfish self-centeredness, this would clearly be a manifestation of desire, otherwise he should always make the objectively perfect decision once free from desire.

[MR. Nate]

You're exactly right, unriggable, in your assumption that sin is subjective if and only if, however, the fundamental order the universe displays does not have purpose and is merely incidental (see first page if you already haven't). I do not believe that homosexuality is any more of a crime than heterosexuality, or anything of that nature; I do not seek to quantify the magnitude of sin. I simply say that if order has purpose, it is a logical conclusion to believe that all desire is incorrect behavior, because we have established the fact that something known as correct or true behavior could possibly exist.

So your saying that producing a child with your wife is just as much sin as killing her? That is a warped ethic. I see that your intuition has led you in a direction that will lead to starvation and no children. Any more great plans of for the salvation of the human race?

Finally, Nate, I don't see how you who have already argued on the sin of neglect through inaction could possibly believe that the blood of humanity would not be on your hands in the example I offered. If you look carefully at the tenets of Christianity I'm sure you can find some evidence that suggests your first responsibility in life is to God.

I'm not denying that I don't have a first and foremost responsibility to God. However, when asked what God wants, I can name a few commandments that would indicate that I have to act the way God wants me too. You know "Do Justly," "Love Mercy," "Walk Humbly". None of those include making a value judgment on if I kill you now, I may save someone else later. No, that's neither mercy or justice. That's guessing that an evil action will ultimately lead to good. There is no support for that in Scripture. Like I said before. I have a responsibility to do good for the glory of God in the situation God has put me in. I can't guess at the big picture and sin hoping it will turn out right.

As far as the hypothetical desire free man, in examining correct action, we must examine impossible ideals because humanity is hopelessly corrupted by desire. Again, I make the claim that he would act on intuition for intuition's sake, something much more reliable and objectively sound then the sympathy you advocate for so strongly.

I never advocated acting on sympathy. I advocate acting out of love, in obedience to what God has said. And, as God is uncorrupted by sin, that is more objectively sound then your tenuous intuition, which you have still not demonstrated to be free from desire.

The strength of God's character is never harmed by acts of desire, Nate, but the domain over which his rule extends is shrunken.

And so now, God is less than God, not because he is less than perfect, but because what he is in control of is less than everything. You're arguing for a god that knows less than us, loses power because of us, and cannot communicate to us. No matter how you cut it, your God isn't strong enough to do anything. Why would one want to join his side, he's losing.

To further expand upon my argument, Nate. I think you are having problems in that you are not questioning why this apathetic man of yours is apathetic. If he is so because of selfish self-centeredness, this would clearly be a manifestation of desire, otherwise he should always make the objectively perfect decision once free from desire.

And if it is because he simply doesn't care? Not wanting to help and wanting to help are both desire, which you reject as evil, but there is always the possibility of just not being impacted. It's called apathy, and you're condoning it.

[Nobuo]

Okay, so you don't advocate sympathy, you advocate love. I define love as selflessness and selflessness as indistinguishable from absence of desire. If you have a better definition of love I'm eager to hear it as this is a question I've often pondered.

I define intuition as the polar opposite of desire, if you can think of a term that better describes this, go ahead and I'll adopt your terminology in order to clear up the difference between instinct and intuition.

Okay, Nate, I admit my marriage example was flawed as I was, as you point out, basing it in the same sorts of evil justifications I was seeking to eradicate. My point in all this was simply that sympathy for only those you care about and that you have become acquainted with is an incomplete and subjective definition of goodness. If you care to argue this any further we can, but it seems as though you have already accepted your first responsibility is to God.

I certainly am not arguing that God knows less than us, Nate. I am arguing that he is incapable of evil and therefore incapable of free will and desire. I do not view this as much of a stretch of faith to make. God certainly isn't losing any battles as you claim I claim, Nate. God is essentially the totality of the universe and we humans are confined to a single planet on the edges of an insignificant galaxy. We are like a bizarre mole on his exterior, but hinder his perfection we continue.

Again, I want to make it very clear that I do not condone apathy in any sense of the word. Just because you do not understand how anything could be moved to do good for any other reason than emotion does not mean that it is impossible to be both good and unemotional. Do you really picture Jesus, Nate, as a blubbering maniac unable to do anything because he begins wailing at the first sight of an injured fluffy puppy (note that emotion is selfish because it is often centered around what makes the individual happier, such as a cute dog).

I don't think I said anything about siring children here, Nate, you're making unfounded assumptions. If you father children because of selfishness, this is wrong, otherwise it's probably right. Most people don't become parents because they are selfish, I don't follow where you are getting your ideas from at all. If, however, you refuse to kill your family instantly for the greater good, this would seem to be an incarnation of selfishness, not selflessness.

I'm waiting for the day, Nate, when you'll admit we differ on nothing more than faith. At that point, I'll respect you completely. Until then, I really enjoy all this arguing.

[mandalorian2298]

I'm tired of the recent trend of de-intellectualization going on in this "Intelleegent Konversation" Forum on that note I happily present a set of eloquent logical axioms I came up with on the subject of pantheism:

-It is obvious that the universe has order(an object always falls back to the ground assuming it doesn't achieve escape velocity first, etc.); this order must be either incidental (as an Atheist or Mystic would maintain), illusionary (as Gnostics promote), or purposeful (as all true religion believes)

It is only obvious that some parts of universe appear to be subject to some rules and laws.

-If the universe is orderly, the order has purpose, and there is nothing beyond the universe (we are already assuming the order is not illusionary), then the universe is sentient itself and can be called God

However, you are very far from proving universal order which you need to proceed with this argument (consider for example Quantum Theory which proves that a degree of randomness exist).

Also Occam's Razor dictates that we refrain from introducing terms that we can do without. You are introducing the term 'God' despite the fact that this term doesn't include anything that isn't already included in your definition of the term 'Universe'.

-If truth is objective, the only way to live an objectively "true" or "perfect" life is to renounce all partiality/subjectivity and therefore desire

All your expiriance is subjective and as such is insufficient to provide you with any proof for the existance (or non-existance) of objective truth.

-Truth can only be objective if order has purpose and so objective truth can only be found if a pantheistic God exists

Wow. That sounds like logical reasoning. It is in fact a compleatly arbitrary claim. But it totaly SOUNDS like logical reasoning.

-If we assume good exists, the only objective definition of good is selfless as compassion, justice, and obedience are inherently subjective

If I assume that Njarlings live on the planet Njarg, then the only objective definition of a Njargling is a fluffy pink creature with one eye and two antenae.
Please explain me this 'objective definition'. Does that mean that you were feeling totaly impartial when you made it up?

-Good exists if order has purpose and so if a pantheistic God exists then good exists as a fundamental aspect of the universe and selflessness is the definition of this concept

I assume that 'order has purpose' because you arbitrarily decided that 'objective definition' of order includes purpose.

-God is the source of objective truth and objective good, therefore God is infinitely perfect and infinitely good; a side effect of this is that God has no desire and no free will, God is infinitely "intuitive" but is free from passion

Lol. Dude you said that 'God' is the Universe. Of course that it doesn't have desire, free will or any other personal qualities, since it is not a person. (sorry, intuition is out too )

-Truth is indistinguishable from perfection which is indistinguishable from selflessness which is indistinguishable from renouncement of desire which is indistinguishable from infinite intuition

If that is correct, then why would you need five different terms to describe one concept?

-If you became "perfect," as described above, you would be indistinguishable from God and therefore would have merged with God; this is my conception of heaven but unfortunately it seems impossible to achieve as it is impossible to will yourself to have no will before will ceases to exist altogether

-The reason for all evil and suffering in the universe is free will and desire—if we were all intuitive (and therefore God), there would be no imperfections in the universe; God cannot interfere with the matters of free will as fatalism results in all sorts of logical contradictions (a consequence of this is though God is the universe, God did not create life, life must have created life)

Why would a perfect God create the free will if it is the source of all evil? Is he evil? Is he clumsy? Is this his first Universe?

Or maybe the existance of free will means that God (if he exists) wants us to be free?

Have Fun! I personally believe that pantheism is the only religion from which the definition of good flows simply and intuitively. Religion today seems to often substitute mystic obscurity, arbitrary complexity, needless ceremony and other corruptions which cloud the original philosophical purity and simplicity religion was designed with. I assert that if you hold onto an atheistic view of the world, you cannot establish completely objective ethics as you do not believe that fundamentally, order has purpose. I believe that if you believe in multiple realities, you view the concerns of this world as either partially or fully illusory. I think that this leads to a tendency on the part of the individual to shirk full responsibility for one’s actions as “it will not matter once we get to heaven” and to view desire as at times benign instead of the sole cause of imperfection and suffering. All selfishness, even if it harms no one now, increases the individual’s expectation for pleasure thereby increasing the chances you will act counter to someone else’s interests down the road. By being selfish we lessen the perfection of God, this is my justification for ethics and the reason why I am a pantheist.

The only way for an individual to assume the responsability fo his actions is by acknowledging his free will and basing his decisions on expirience, reasonining and predicting the probible consequences of their actions.

The way to avoid personal responsability is pinning everything on your chosen diety and declaring yourself to be a poor, little, flawed bystander.

[khazalid]

I'm tired of the recent trend of de-intellectualization going on in this "Intelleegent Konversation" Forum on that note I happily present a set of eloquent logical axioms I came up with on the subject of pantheism:

-It is obvious that the universe has order(an object always falls back to the ground assuming it doesn't achieve escape velocity first, etc.); this order must be either incidental (as an Atheist or Mystic would maintain), illusionary (as Gnostics promote), or purposeful (as all true religion believes)

first things first - kudos to you sir. will you be my cyber-friend? ethics is tough, you have sacrifices to make left, right and centre. when you come across someone on the same wavelength keep it close and absorb. and most importantly, dont be afraid to follow through on the right course of action. if it needs a knife; it needs a knife.

that said i have to debunk your first axiom. the universe was until very recently thought to be ordered but all the research now points in the opposite direction. though atoms are orderly, sub-atomic particles are haphazard, random and unpredictable. id posit that if you look closely enough you'll see god but that is a topic for another day. x

[Nobuo]

Huzzah! New blood! These old arguments were beginning to become stale. Of course I'll be your cyber buddy khazalid as long as such a relationship is one of formal exchange of information and selfless respect.

I see that people have come to a stop with quantum theory. I would say that quantum theory, and this claim has been already uttered to death, only increases the glory of a pantheistic God. Order is maintained on a grand scale while also allowing God to do potentially anything. I would argue that every single seemingly random quantum interaction is the most perfect possible occurrence that could happen given the situation and the burden our free will imposes. (I suppose this is exactly what you meant, khazalid, when you said God still could be found through deep inspection. Kudos to you, but in the future, if you have something to say, say it, don't let me have all the fun.)

As far as your arguments, mandalorian, yes I have no proof that truth is objective, I have already tried to make that clear and it is the reason why I am ultimately agnostic. However, here is my argument. Is there such thing as objectively correct action? We can tell that simply seeking pleasure does not always lead to happiness: you indulge more now, you expect more later, you have less anticipation for the pleasures promised, you become unhappy due to gluttony. Additionally, there exists both positive competition and negative competition. Negative competition consists of actions that detracts from the collective pool of happiness, a less than zero sum game. Arms races are examples of negative competition--everyone is obeying their self interest but no one is getting what they want. Resource depletion is another example--for a while everyone is happy, then everyone becomes very unhappy.

Okay, so now you are listening, you believe that ethics could possibly exist. So far from my examples it sounds like unethical behavior is characterized by selfishness. Could listening to authority, possessing compassion, or dealing to every man what he deserves possibly be objective definitions of correct behavior? I would argue no. Selflessness is the only definition of good that I have found to be the same for everyone and therefore possibly objective. If you want to argue this go ahead, but it seems fairly intuitively apparent to me.

So what is the final assumption we have to make in order for selflessness to be an accurate description of good? We have to assume that there is such a thing as objective truth. If there is objective truth, then there is objective perfection, and therefore objective goodness and that goodness would be clearly defined by selflessness. If there is purpose behind every act of order then there must be truth to which it is aspiring, this seems like enough justification behind my axioms to me.

Why would a perfect God create the free will if it is the source of all evil? Is he evil? Is he clumsy? Is this his first Universe? Rolling Eyes

You quoted my assertion that God did not create life and then seemed to have not even bothered to understand it. God came into being because he needs no justifications--he simply is intuition manifest. We arose through some sick, perverted mechanisms that I care not to either understand nor explain. Our desire, our self interest, our free will, our want for self preservation are all consequences of this. We need to understand that ultimately faith transcends logic and that selflessness transcends short term desire. We can still become part of God but it is very, very difficult. In the mean time, I am content to waste away my days, attempting to aid God however possible until I cease to exist and my consciousness vanishes. I do not think I am a bystander to God, as you assert, but I do think the concerns of God dwarf my own many times over.

Finally, can you ever describe a great thing with only one word? I thought not; just because many are used does not mean they aren't all true. An extremely great thing, such as God, could have a million words in a thousand languages used to describe him. I use five. Surely you do not quibble with this? I believe that intuition is not a personal phenomenon, as you claim, because we, as animals, are born with instinct than we have the potential to reject and to replace with intuition. Intuition does not consist of emotion, intuition does not consist of selfishness, intuition simply is what is, something completely foreign to the basic human psyche, but something that we can use our free will to adopt after realizing that free will is undesirable.

[MR. Nate]

Okay, so you don't advocate sympathy, you advocate love. I define love as selflessness and selflessness as indistinguishable from desire. If you have a better definition of love I'm eager to hear it as this is a question I've often pondered.

John defines love as obedience to God. And not obedience as in outward conformity, but also inward conformity. It is active pursuit of what God desires. Doing what he says, thinking as he things. You, however, have now posited that love=selflessness=desire. Here I thought you were pro selflessness and anti desire. You have succeeded in either not reading your posts before flinging them out there, or absolutely muddying the waters beyond all hope of recovery. I would agree with you that love is selfless, meaning that true love for God sacrifices self. How that equates to desire I do not know.

I define intuition as the polar opposite of desire, if you can think of a term that better describes this, go ahead and I'll adopt your terminology in order to clear up the difference between instinct and intuition.

I was under the impression that intuition was more a non-rational knowledge. Desire, wanting something is completely different. The opposite of desire is . . . apathy. I think I've mentioned that. Satisfaction is past desire that has been fulfilled (which is sin under your definitions) and so we must go with something that simply doesn't care. Yes, I think apathy will do nicely.

Okay, Nate, I admit my marriage example was flawed as I was, as you point out, basing it in the same sorts of evil justifications I was seeking to eradicate. My point in all this was simply that sympathy for only those you care about and that you have become acquainted with is an incomplete and subjective definition of goodness. If you care to argue this any further we can, but it seems as though you have already accepted your first responsibility is to God.

And my point is that your definition of good eradicates all sympathy for those you care about as ultimately self serving. I'm not saying that those who are closest to you are the entirety of the good you must do, just that they are certainly a part of it. However, any act of kindness to those that I care about, by your definition, is sin, because I desire to do it. It warps the very essence of good. One can no longer desire to be virtuous, one must be virtuous without actually caring.

I certainly am not arguing that God knows less than us, Nate. I am arguing that he is incapable of evil and therefore incapable of free will and desire. I do not view this as much of a stretch of faith to make. God certainly isn't losing any battles as you claim I claim, Nate. God is essentially the totality of the universe and we humans are confined to a single planet on the edges of an insignificant galaxy. We are like a bizarre mole on his exterior, but hinder his perfection we continue.

Your definition of evil includes positives, which is why your god is less than we are. He cannot look at the options, and decide "This is better" He cannot even see the evil option, only the good exists for him. If God has no free will, he is incapable of moral judgment.

Again, I want to make it very clear that I do not condone apathy in any sense of the word.

Right, I think you've said that you have to do things because you have to, not because you want to. Sort of a vague following rules because they are there, while ignoring actual people. I fail to see how this is not apathy.

Just because you do not understand how anything could be moved to do good for any other reason than emotion does not mean that it is impossible to be both good and unemotional. Do you really picture Jesus, Nate, as a blubbering maniac unable to do anything because he begins wailing at the first sight of an injured fluffy puppy (note that emotion is selfish because it is often centered around what makes the individual happier, such as a cute dog).

I never said that nothing can be moved to do good for any reason other than emotion. I am simply saying that emotion is A perfectly valid motive for doing good. And quite honestly, your caricature of Jesus is offensive. He was never prevented from doing good, yet he freely expressed his emotion. He wept (tears and blood) was angered, moved with compassion, sympathetic. In short, a fully emotional being. Try reading the gospels and underline the times that Jesus emotes. You'll either demote him further or reject the gospel accounts altogether.

I don't think I said anything about siring children here, Nate, you're making unfounded assumptions. If you father children because of selfishness, this is wrong, otherwise it's probably right. Most people don't become parents because they are selfish, I don't follow where you are getting your ideas from at all. If, however, you refuse to kill your family instantly for the greater good, this would seem to be an incarnation of selfishness, not selflessness.

So, people don't have children because they WANT them? what world do you live in? People often try to have children for no other reason than the pleasure of loving someone. Surely, you cannot allow that, love=desire, sex=desire. It's desire for the sake of desire. Further, the act of killing your family is morally reprehensible. How an act of such utter evil could possibly be for the greater good is incomprehensible. Even if, theoretically, that were a possibility, how can I KNOW it is for the greater good? I can't. And how can I excuse my morally wrong act (killing innocent beings) for some vague and nebulous "greater good?"

[khazalid]

ho hum. too much text for 5am on a sunday..

keep your heart crossed my friend. i am hoping that here, at last, be one capable of grasping that meaning. its a long shot but its all ive got! let me know and we can work something out, i got networks everywhere. if everywhere is north america and europe.. anyway, you get the idea. rsvp! there are too few going about. dont eat meat and dont fly, and i reiterate - fear not the blade! let me know your plans. quirkily yours brother, and all the love in the world

x

[Nobuo]

I don't fear the blade, khazalid, and I don't fear truth. I suspect you're beginning to become silly for the sake of being silly as you are wavering from a path of simplicity, this is all well and good; I don't think anything should be taken all too seriously, especially the self. By networks? Don't we all have them? The assumption that we are all hooked up to the internet right now is a given, I'll go no farther than that on trivialities.

I'm so sorry about my slip up there, Nate. I've fixed it now. Hopefully one mistake does not erase my message. Please do not see contradiction where none was intended. I respect your journalistic spirit to some extent. At least it is proof that you are thoroughly reading my claims.

I'm sorry for such an inconvenient mistake, but I've been writing a lot in this thread and surely grave mistakes would begin to emerge. I view all love corrupted by desire as lust. I view all intuition corrupted by desire as instinct. I do not see how goodness can be founded upon desire to any extent. If you see further inconsistencies of this manner, please point them out, I'll expediently correct them, but don't make them the center point of your argument against me.

People with children generally want them, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying they don't want them for selfish reasons. I believe that you will know when something is right because of your faith, intuition, and your commitment to selflessness. Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac and all that wasn't he? I hate to bring up biblical fable but I feel compelled to it.

The exact opposite of acting on self interest is acting on selflessness. You claim the opposite of acting on self interest is not acting at all. I just don't see the logic in this claim and request that you stop calling apathy the opposite of desire.

Again, I can see no possible way my conviction that God is the universe could be construed as meaning God is any less than we are. It is your complete encasement in desire that makes you so obstinate that desire could be called ideal. God cannot do evil. This does not cause him to be less glorious. God cannot have desire or free will. This does not cause him to be less glorious.

[khazalid]

we all have networks but not everyone has veins. perhaps i should've rephrased. you got a few years ahead of you, come back when it all makes sense. no silliness intended m'lord. & fond regards!

[Nobuo]

I'll be the first to admit that I have much to learn, khazalid, and many years before I mature. If you seek to promote the generation of reason in me by defying said reason, I would argue I have enough reason already through my faith and intuition in God. If you seek to be arbitrarily meaningless, to see divinity in randomness and not in purpose, if you are looking for truth in the arcane, ephemeral, and attractive, you have much yet to learn. I must insist that you drop pretenses of humility when speaking to me if you want to be my cyber friend; flattery will get you nowhere.

[khazalid]

in which case i bid you good day.




nah im kidding, youre alright. you ever speak to the big guy upstairs? i expected him to be a little wittier but we cant all be khazalid, can we? rhetoric, rhetoric. seriously though, dwell on that first statement a while and see where you get. you mull it over long enough and im pretty sure you'll get where i am, divine hand or no. morality is the new theology baby and you and i are king of the castle. banquet at dawn, alright?

[Nobuo]

I suspect now that you are trying to goad me into revealing as much information as possible in a desperate attempt to see what you are rattling on about. If you want to ask me something, ask away. If you want to tell me something, tell away. Concealing the truth serves no purpose. By first statement you mean that everyone has veins? The distribution of ideas through a biological species? The "reincarnation" of the soul? I am your machine and you the maniacal user. I know enough to know what I know, there is no point for me in speculation about the irrelevant. If there is such a point for you, be more direct.

[MR. Nate]

OK, you meant that love equals the absence of desire. I'm glad to see you're not just randomly contradicting yourself. Still, absence of desire is a poor definition of love. I would not be a stretch to say I covet time with those I love, I desire to connect with them emotionally. I desire to spend time with them. That seems to be a fundamental part of filial love. Certainly marital relationships, which include a healthy amount of physical desire would be included in love. In fact, I would say that true love includes wanting quite a few things.

[khazalid]

I suspect now that you are trying to goad me into revealing as much information as possible in a desperate attempt to see what you are rattling on about. If you want to ask me something, ask away. If you want to tell me something, tell away. Concealing the truth serves no purpose. By first statement you mean that everyone has veins? The distribution of ideas through a biological species? The "reincarnation" of the soul? I am your machine and you the maniacal user. I know enough to know what I know, there is no point for me in speculation about the irrelevant. If there is such a point for you, be more direct.

the only information i want from you youve already given me indirectly.

first statement wasnt actually first statement, (apologies) i was referring to the cross and the heart.

where does reincarnation come into it?

and if there was no point in speculation about the irrelevant then youd lose every game of risk you played

[Nobuo]

You desire to spend time with them, Nate, but doesn't this by definition detract from the time in which you can worship God or to love a person in an impoverished country more deserving of love, perhaps, than some spoiled Americans who could do with a little character-building-suffering? Desire is natural, sex is natural, eating is natural. But religion isn't natural in that sense of the word. Dogs don't philosophize, they eat. Trees don't worship, they grow. Bird don't seek to become divine, they fly and shit and fornicate and do all three at the same time. Religion marches to a higher sense of naturality--that of God, that of the inanimate, that of the intuitive, that of faith. In this it is astoundingly natural, it simply does not include the lackings displayed by life.

Do you agree with the other points I made above? The father must be willing to sacrifice the son out of selflessness? Apathy is not the opposite of selfish action, selfless action is? "Love" polluted with desire is lust? God being incapable of sin does not mean he is any less glorious?

If you agree with all these points, I think we can finally come to a state of respectful disagreeance. I see no logical problems in your view, you in mine; faith being the only thing that separates us. I cannot believe that God could possibly create humanity nor incarnate himself in human form and you cannot believe that God could possibly exist entirely within the confines of this universe. You believe your religion more easily leads to morality and I the reverse, but our definitions of morality are essentially equivalent.

[Nobuo]

As far as you, Khazalid, the soul has everything to do with the swirling vortexes of time in a reality of constant flux. Where change is constant yet form retained, inertia present in a field of overlapping interaction where such interaction becomes infinitesimally small and then quantized again out of the void. By your vein and therefore fluid imagery my mind leapt to thoughts of your possessing some strange belief in a fluid network of whatever arbitrary substance you could posit.

You now send me off to find some physical significance in the cross? Paranoia is not a good thing to possess, stop trying to infect me with doses of it.

[MR. Nate]

You desire to spend time with them, Nate, but doesn't this by definition detract from the time in which you can worship God or to love a person in an impoverished country more deserving of love, perhaps, than some spoiled Americans who could do with a little character-building-suffering? Desire is natural, sex is natural, eating is natural. But religion isn't natural in that sense of the word.

Yes, by definition it detracts from the time that you can spend with a person in an impoverished country more deserving of Love, but they are not as directly your responsibility as your family. God said: Husbands, love your wives, Wives, learn to love your husbands. God did not say: Everyone must find the least loved person and love them the most. And, I think that such "natural" acts as sex, eating, working, spending time with family, can all be done for the glory of God. There is not spiritual / natural dichotomy. Anything which is moral can be done for the Glory of God.

Do you agree with the other points I made above? The father must be willing to sacrifice the son out of selflessness? Apathy is not the opposite of selfish action, selfless action is? "Love" polluted with desire is lust? God being incapable of sin does not mean he is any less glorious?

I will agree that a father must be willing to allow God to control the fate of his son. I certainly don't condone the immoral acts you would, such as killing them. As for Apathy is the opposite of action, no matter how you slice it. Certainly motives are very important, but the right action for the wrong reason is better than no action at all. Love, as I have pointed out, has many desires. Lust is not love, lust is selfish desire. But Love includes some desire in it. They are inherent. As for God being incapable of sin, with the loose definitions of this paragraph, I could agree. But I know that you include free will in sin. God is not chained to a moral law higher than he. He freely chooses to do the right thing every time. You refuse to accept that.

If you agree with all these points, I think we can finally come to a state of respectful disagreeance. I see no logical problems in your view, you in mine; faith being the only thing that separates us. I cannot believe that God could possibly create humanity nor incarnate himself in human form and you cannot believe that God could possibly exist entirely within the confines of this universe. You believe your religion more easily leads to morality and I the reverse, but our definitions of morality are essentially equivalent.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Your views are rife with logical contradictions, not the least of which is your indecision about the person of Christ. You have glossed over much of what I have said, seeking common ground, but let me be clear:
Your theology, anthropology, hamartiology and soteriology are all skewed beyond recognition. Your blind faith in your own intuition has led you down a path where the only way you can consistently live out your beliefs is by starving yourself to death alone in a spartan cell.

[Nobuo]

I never condoned evil action, Nate, I said you had to be willing to make the selfless, difficult choice when the time came. Yeah it really is a bummer that sometimes evil happens, but you can't simply deny that you'll ever get into a situation where morality conflicts with selfishness.

You say lust is complete desire; pure and total love still possesses desire. Just because you've never experienced love free from all desire, it can't exist. This is a form of faith, I suppose I can't do anything to shake you from this nor you do the equivalent to me.

I agree that everything that which is moral can be done for the glory of God. However, I do not think anything bloated with desire could ever be moral.

You say God is not chained to any law higher than he. I say if he had free will, upon what merits would he be choosing his action, perhaps some set of laws? I say that God possessing free will more clearly lead to there being higher law because then there would be the potential that God could fail. I say it is impossible for God to ever fail, that he is the definition of goodness. This leads to the conclusion that he is sentience without free will as free will can never intuitively know the right thing to do at all times, as God does.

You say I'll die alone in a spartan cell. I don't see how this is quite relevant, but so be it. I am content to die, I don't see how much more I can really do with my life, I simply seek to follow the most significant purpose I can find (God) and quietly wait for my thoughts to stop forming.

As for apathy, what is the opposite of action? Inaction. This is true. What is the opposite of selfish action? Selfless action. Selfless action does not equate to inaction, it simply means acting without desire to act. I'll sleep on this and see what I come up with; please come up with a more informative way of educating me on this point then simply refusing to believe that desire free action could also be action.

I thought I liked debate, but there is always a limit to the merits of a substance in bushels. I am thoroughly exhausted at this point, I suppose I am not cut out for this labor.

[MeDeFe]

You're both about equally frightening, Nate with his ideas on thought-crime, Nobuo with his character-building suffering.

[MR. Nate]

MeDeFe, if it's any consolation, I am against criminalizing thought. God is fully capable of sorting it out Himself, although I am not opposed to character building through suffering.

I never condoned evil action, Nate, I said you had to be willing to make the selfless, difficult choice when the time came. Yeah it really is a bummer that sometimes evil happens, but you can't simply deny that you'll ever get into a situation where morality conflicts with selfishness.

I was not denying that morality often conflicts with selfishness. I am denying that acting immorally can be right, however "unselfish" it may be. You may have been betrayed by your example, in that you asked me to do an immediate immoral action for possible future good. That isn't acceptable.

You say lust is complete desire; pure and total love still possesses desire. Just because you've never experienced love free from all desire, it can't exist. This is a form of faith, I suppose I can't do anything to shake you from this nor you do the equivalent to me.
I agree that everything that which is moral can be done for the glory of God. However, I do not think anything bloated with desire could ever be moral.

I suppose that because you have defined desire as evil, you can never admit that love includes desire. Would it be helpful if I told you that Buddhist monks are not supposed to love specific individuals, because doing so includes desire and is therefore defined as evil? Perhaps that would lend some clarity to your thought. And perhaps you could meditate on this as well: It is impossible to accomplish anything without desiring to obtain it. So, when you decide to eradicate your desires, you are acting out a desire. It's motive is as pure as the wind driven snow, certainly, but it is a desire nonetheless. As a result, your paradigm is unfulfillable because in it, one can never be sinless without sinning specifically to achieve the result.

You say God is not chained to any law higher than he. I say if he had free will, upon what merits would he be choosing his action, perhaps some set of laws? I say that God possessing free will more clearly lead to there being higher law because then there would be the potential that God could fail. I say it is impossible for God to ever fail, that he is the definition of goodness. This leads to the conclusion that he is sentience without free will as free will can never intuitively know the right thing to do at all times, as God does.

God is not subject to a higher law, He freely chooses to act consistently with His character. His character is the highest moral law, so He (and He alone) will always be right if He is true to Himself. I think your premises (that God will never fail, that He is the definition of Goodness) are correct. Your a priori assumption (that free will can never know the right thing to do at all times) is not factual, however, which means that your conclusion is not valid.

You say I'll die alone in a spartan cell. I don't see how this is quite relevant, but so be it. I am content to die, I don't see how much more I can really do with my life, I simply seek to follow the most significant purpose I can find (God) and quietly wait for my thoughts to stop forming.

Think about it from a wider point of view. If your beliefs are accurate, and starving alone in a cell is highest attainment of religion, than the religious goal of the human race should be extinction. It seems pointless for God to create humanity with the goal of extinction.

As for apathy, what is the opposite of action? Inaction. This is true. What is the opposite of selfish action? Selfless action. Selfless action does not equate to inaction, it simply means acting without desire to act. I'll sleep on this and see what I come up with; please come up with a more informative way of educating me on this point then simply refusing to believe that desire free action could also be action.

I'm not arguing that desire free action is not action, I'm arguing that it is not the only moral type of action. Desire free action is action that is unmotivated. If someone were to attempt to prevent you, you don't care, so you just walk away. It's picking up a random pebble on the beach because it is there. Moral actions require motive. If one does not care that a person is dying, it is difficult to argue that saving them was good, because it was done simply to be done. If the only reason you do something is "Because it is the right thing to do" you're still acting out of desire. You desire to do the right thing. Good motive, certainly, but still a desire. By my definition, that is a morally correct action. By your definition, it is sin. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all desire is good. But I will say that if an individual desires to be more like Christ, as they move in that direction, their desires will become increasingly conformed to the character of God.

I thought I liked debate, but there is always a limit to the merits of a substance in bushels. I am thoroughly exhausted at this point, I suppose I am not cut out for this labor.

That is a shame. As wrong as I think you are, I always enjoy a bit of back and forth. There is always value in testing our beliefs against others, and in thinking through other viewpoints.

[jimboston]

I'm tired of the recent trend of de-intellectualization going on in this "Intelleegent Konversation".

Blame DaGip.