and could you please explain briefly what you mean by this.
How does theism differ from deism? Is the God of deism more nuetral and inactive other than in natural law, while the God of theism is active in mankinds affairs?
What do you mean by essentialist?
a brief explanation or a link will be much appreciated.
Think of kata as a fourth spatial dimension. One way to conceptualize it is to draw an analogy between two-dimensional space vs three-dimensial space and three-dimensional space vs four-dimensional space. Consider a two-dimensional creature who can perceive only left-right and forward-back, but no up-down. Such a creature might live on the surface of a piece of paper. Now consider the creature observing a closed circle — a two-dimensional thing. From his perspective, he can see either the outside wall of the circle (if he is outside it) or the inside wall of the circle (if he is inside it), but it is impossible for him to see both the outside and the inside at the same time. He cannot look “over” the wall. You, on the other hand, can look on from above, and see both the inside and outside of the circle simultaneously. Likewise, you have the same problems with a closed sphere — a three-dimensional thing — that he has with a closed circle. You can see only the outside of a closed sphere (if you are outside it) or the inside (if you are inside it), but you cannot see both at the same time. You cannot look “kata” the shell. However, a creature observing from kata can see both the inside of the sphere and the outside of the sphere simultaneously, even though it is closed to you. He is looking on from a direction that you can scarcely even conceive. A creature that is infinitely dimensional will observe all surfaces and all events at all times — past, persent, and future — simultaneously. I have often said that, from God’s perspective, the universe has not yet begun, is ongoing, and is finished — all at once.
Definitions these days are controversial, but as I use the terms deism holds that God is epistemically reasonable and therefore incomprehensible, whereas theism holds that God is epistemically vague and therefore personal. Reason is the basis of a deist’s belief, whereas revelation is the basis of a theist’s belief. A theist may hold that reason is a part of his belief, but a deist may not hold that revelation is a part of his; therefore, deism is a penumbra of theism. Some deists hold that God is apart from His creation, but it is not a necessary tenet of the philosophy.
Finally, an essentialist is the philosophical opposite of an existentialist. In existentialism, existence precedes essence. In essentialism, essence precedes existence. Thus for me, God’s essence (goodness) is more vital than His existence. Existence is a trivial property, and is true of all non-contradictions.
I’m kidding. Although it will take some time and consideration for all this to sink in.
You explained it in saptial terms. I get that part. {kinda} In a wonderful book called Mr God this is Anna a brilliant child put it this way. While we have many points of view God has an infinate number of viewing points.
Like you I think the phrase “God is **in **everything” is to limiting although I usually let it pass in idle conversation. It’s more like God is in, around , through, and the essence of everything.
How does the Kata work within things non spatial, like God seeing all out motives and intent. even our most subconscious motives and fears.?
This really helps. I’m a revelation guy myself. I try to use logic and reason to help me sort things out but ultimately only revelation leads to comprehension.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that revelation is simply learning to listen.
The essence and existance thing is still confuseing to me. Doesn’t “God is” cover both essence and existance? Doesn’t essence and existance occur simultaneously? I just accpet the fact that their are certain details that are beyond me at this point. God’s form or lack of it seems irrelevant. The essence of what God is ,is relevant. Love, truth, Unity, wholeness. Thanks for taking the time to explain. It’s appreciated.
Cosmosdan
If you would like to think of the world in more abstract mathematical terms — and after all, the universe is nothing more than a probability distribution — you can think of dimensions simply as variables, much as you would in a formula for area, or even velocity. If every aspect of existence is a variable, then God is a reference frame that is privvy to the values (and possible values) of them all. There is no reason that these aspects should exclude such things as motives and fears. The complexity of the equation(s), while remarkable, is no obstacle. That includes time. From God’s frame of reference, if it was necessary that a billion universes came about before the emergence of man, the wait-time was still zero.
I very much like your take that “revelation is simply learning to listen”. As a Quaker, I like to quiet my mind and open my heart to hear the voice of God. Whenever He reveals anything to me, I test it with reason because that’s my gut reaction to everything I hear from anyone. But reason merely confirms; it does not compel.
I like Fa-tsang’s Gold Lion as an illustration of the difference between existence and essence, although it is more often used to illustrate the difference between the noumenal and the phenomenal. The Gold Lion is neither merely gold, nor merely a lion. It exists as a golden statue simulating a lion, but its essence is aesthetical. It is not typical to react to it from fear, as one would with a lion, or from avarice, as one would with gold bullion. Rather, one reacts to it from an appreciation of beauty and artistic value. Were there no Gold Lion, men would have to make one because the essence of man drives him to create aesthetically valuable things. In fact, the whole of a man’s life is the pursuit of aesthetic fulfillment. Goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. It is the aesthetic which edifies. Love is the facilitation of goodness — the sharing of it between free moral agents. Because God is the Facilitator of Goodness, God is Love. And were He not to exist, His essence would compel Him to emerge. Therefore, essence trumps existence.
I think truth is greater than love, for with out truth love could be a lie. Truth can not be added to or subtracted from. It is was is, and not always known.
Essence would then be existance becaue it would exist.
Monavis
I guess I understand but to me love and truth as qualities of God are inseperable.
Love cannot be a lie and be love. In love there is only truth. There are lots of things we call love in our culture that are simply substitues for the true love we hunger for.
Love is the facilitation of goodness. Truth is one property of goodness.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
No. I rail against people selling bullshit to others and calling it religous truth. And please not that I am most assuredly NOT doing exactly the thing I rail against. I am not trying to gain power over people, nor am I trying to accumulate wealth. At least, not from this. 
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If the idea that you are agreeing with is a con, you’re buying the con. As an example: Hitler convinced others that it was proper and correct to kill Jews. Their decision to agree with him was the product of their experience, logic, etc. but that doesn’t change the fact that the original idea they agreed with was bogus.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If someone shows you something and says it is black, when in fact it is green, are you not honor-bound to correct it? This is not a matter of beliefs. It is a matter of lies that masquerade as beliefs. It took me a long time to find this out. I wasn’t even looking for it; I stumbled over it while looking for something quite the opposite, and when I did, I denied it at first. But I kept looking and the more I found, the more I learned.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And that is exactly what I am doing - challenging. People impose their belief systems on me and others on a massive scale on a daily basis. There are only a few of us willing to stand up and say that is not right. Fortunately, we can do that in today’s society. A couple of centuries ago, we would have been burned at the stake while the godly religious folks danced in glee.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
That is you opinion, and doesn’t really qualify as fact or truth any more or less than the “truth” you protest against.
You think your beliefs are the “truth” and they are selling bullshit. They think their beliefs are “truth” and you are a blasphemous sinner {at least some do}
Pot…kettle Kettle…Pot take your pick.
cute… Yes there are those that use religion to gain power and wealth. Shame on them. Your statement was that
That includes all believers not just the charlatans. You welcome to believe that but it is as unprovable as the existance of God. It’s your own personal bullshit, that you are here trying to sell.
I share your distaste for those who use religion to line their pockets. I don’t see it any different than people useing dishonest and unethical practices in any arena.
Minister who lies, Used car salesman who lies, all the same to me.
Ahh but thats not what you said before. Your comment was.
That is what was simply false. Still is.
Thats a major qualifier you made. If the idea is a con If God is, remembering there is no proof either way, then it must be the atheists who have bought the con.
Well in those circumstances I think honor bound might be too strong but I get your point. There are beliefs that I disagree with and will take a stand against when the opportunity presents itself. Such as “God wrote the Bible” or “If you don’t accept Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior you’ll go to hell” or “only our religous beliefs are the right ones” “Bush is a great president” and other unholy things.
You’re right, it is a matter of lies that masquerade as beliefs. Neither you or I are finished figureing out which beliefs are lies. If you think you are then there’s another one right there. You can’t prove God doesn’t exist any more than I can prove God does exist. You have a right to choose what you believe. So do I.
You can respectfully disagree if you like. When you make blanket staements or snide comments “because I have a functioning brain” for example. You imply that everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion about things you can’t prove, must be stupid or naive. That belief, is both of those things.
And a couple before that Christians were the ones persecuted. The wheel turns.
Hey, I support your right to challenge beliefs. I think beliefs should be challenged. Religous, moral, philospohical, challenge them all. It’s how we grow. I hope the method is thoughtful and respectful and without malice.
I feel a responsibility to try to live up to my beliefs. I also am aware that my beliefs are evolving. I try to allow others there own evolutionary path.
I’m not a big fan of organized religion but it’s a part of our culture and I accept it as part of that belief evolution. When beliefs I don’t agree with intrude into my space I don’t mind challenging them.
You seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you complain about those who use religion for profit or power. Yes that happens. Then you make blanket statements that implies anyone with spiritual beliefs is a moron buying some con.
That is just as ignorent and prejudical as “Only Christians are going to Heaven”
“All Black people have rhythm” “All Jews are cheap” etc. etc.
So by all means, stand up for what you believe. Don’t think your bullshit smells any better than anyone elses.
what are the other properties?
To use your metaphor of a lack of evidence as shit, Clothahump has a large pile right here in front of us. However, those who claim religion is good have a bigger pile. You see, while ther is no proof that god doesn’t exist, there is proof that most forms of religion are big ol’ piles of crap.
You see, it seems quite pathetic that Clothahump and others can keep demonstrating misc. irrational crap contained in religion, but the religious can always counter with the non-defense of “You can’t prove god isn’t real.” This is the purpose of the IPU.
Crunchiness, if you trust Google
Yes Scott, I’ve seen your posts and have a pretty good idea about your thinking.
My objection here is about blanket statements that aren’t true. Prejudice and bigotry and sweeping generalities that smack of ignorance are the same form of stupidity no matter what the subject or the source. I’d feel the same way if believers were spouting their own form of ignorance.
It is the all inclusive and incorrect statements, such as the ones demonstrated in this thread, that I find irrational. It is the ridiculous conclusion that since you can name lots of bad stuff done by religion then all religion is bad, that I find irrational.
It’s similar to, Lots of bad stuff done by governments and so governments are bad. It’s a ridiculous generality that keeps being presented as if it’s a documented fact.
Organized religion is a social construct of mankind. There are many other examples. Governments federal and local. Unions. Political action groups. The ACLU, etc etc
These organizations are populated by people and subject to all the imperfections that come with that. The bullshit that occurs within religion is no different, better or worse, than the bullshit that occurs in other organizations. The idea that it is inherently worse because its religion is pure folly.
The irrational crap you speak of is contained in humanity. Clothahump has demonstrated some of that. So his irrational crap is superior to the irrational crap coming from religion. Hardly! Thats why I pointed out that he’s doing the same thing he complains about. Learn to tell the difference between personal opinion and fact. It comes in handy.
“you can’t prove God isn’t real” isn’t a defense. It’s a fact. Just like I can’t prove God is real. Given those two statements as fact then statements like all religion being bullshit is just an unprovable opinion and has no more wieght or validity than anyone elses. You’re free to choose what you believe and why you believe it. You’re free to express yourself and feel smart because of snide comments and subtle ridicule. Don’t mistake your unprovable personal opinion for superior intelligence.
It reminds me of kids in a playground argueing over which piece of playground equipment is the best. It’s a pointless arguement.
By the way, I never claimed that religion is good. Thats the kind of generality I’m not too fond of. Because of the nature of mankind religion is a mix of good and bad. The idea that we’d be better of without religion is another unprovable opinion. It doesn’t have any more merit than someone believeing we’d all be better of if we just accepted Jesus.
good one.
Thanks HooDoo, I needed a laugh.
It is still my contention that Truth is what is…even if it is unknown at the moment. Love must first be true, to be Love. Truth can stand alone and as one seeks it; even if we do not like what we hear, or see, truth is still there.
Monavis
It is still my contention that Truth proceeds love, truth is what is, without truth love is not love. Truth can stand alone, even when it is unknown. Some time we do not like the truth but it is still always there. Everything depends on Truth. without truth love is not love.
Monavis
the chicken of truth or the egg of love???
If the egg of love exists it would be in the Truth,for it would truly be there…hence truth. If it didn’t contain truth it wouldn’t be really lovebut a sham.
Monavis
Sorry about the comma missing between love and but. I should have added if the chicken of truth existed then it would be there because it existed. Truth is what really is.
Monavis
Why did the Chicken of Truth cross the Road of Life?