Door 69

Originally posted by whodey
"The belief in God requires faith, but not the God himself."

Well it is true that God sometimes "proves" himself to mankind. After all, I think he did a fairly good job when parted the Red Sea and brought manna from heaven and raised the dead and healed the sick via Christ. Then again, does such proof do anything at all in terms of mankind placing their ...[text shortened]... re determained what we place our faith or belief in. Christ more or less said so himself.

God only wants us to desire him.

On what basis do you make that claim? What evidence do you have, other than your faith, that this is, in fact, truly the motivation of this god entity?
You're attributing desires and motivations to it that model our own human desires and motivations.

Originally posted by amannion
God only wants us to desire him.

On what basis do you make that claim? What evidence do you have, other than your faith, that this is, in fact, truly the motivation of this god entity?
You're attributing desires and motivations to it that model our own human desires and motivations.

It is simple logic. We were either created by God or evolved from lifeless matter without devine intervention. Either way one must admitt, in some form or fashion, that we were created with free will. So why is it that we were created with free will? Was is not to be able to choose what we desire? The question then becomes does God then want us to seek him. Well if he exists he either desires us to seek him or not to pursue him. If the later is correct then as I have said before, God has no interest in mingling with us mere mortals in an interelational way. In such a scenerio, God is dead already in terms of how mankind relates to him if he exists.

Originally posted by whodey
It is simple logic. We were either created by God or evolved from lifeless matter without devine intervention. Either way one must admitt, in some form or fashion, that we were created with free will. So why is it that we were created with free will? Was is not to be able to choose what we desire? The question then becomes does God then want us to seek h ...[text shortened]... y. In such a scenerio, God is dead already in terms of how mankind relates to him if he exists.

We were either created by God or evolved from lifeless matter without devine intervention.

False dichotomy.

Either way one must admitt, in some form or fashion, that we were created with free will.

But your previous sentence admits the possibility that we weren't created.

So why is it that we were created with free will? Was is not to be able to choose what we desire?

Why should there be any purpose to having free will? What if it's just the natural result of how we evolved?

Well if he exists he either desires us to seek him or not to pursue him.

Again, a false dichotomy. Perhaps God is neutral about whether we seek him or not.

If the later is correct then as I have said before, God has no interest in mingling with us mere mortals in an interelational way. In such a scenerio, God is dead already in terms of how mankind relates to him if he exists.

You've done nothing to rule out this scenario, so your conclusion - "God only wants us to desire him" - is not justified.

Originally posted by whodey
It is simple logic. We were either created by God or evolved from lifeless matter without devine intervention. Either way one must admitt, in some form or fashion, that we were created with free will. So why is it that we were created with free will? Was is not to be able to choose what we desire? The question then becomes does God then want us to seek h ...[text shortened]... y. In such a scenerio, God is dead already in terms of how mankind relates to him if he exists.

If “God” is not a (supernatural) being, but the ground and source of being, from which we arise, in which we exist, and of which we are—then everything is already mingled. There is no one to seek, and nowhere to seek it. We project relationship (or non-relationship) based upon our conceptual notions of separateness. This is not necessarily a bad thing, only provisional and limited. We assume that whatever transcends our conceptual “grammar” must be some separate entity, rather than simply aspects of the one reality (the one-without-a-second, the all-without-another) that are not conceptually accessible to us.

In fact, everything is mingled. A picture is formed in my visual cortex of that tree—including dimensionality, perspective, etc. I see that tree, not only as a figure against a ground, but as a figure in the midst of the ground out of which it ex-ists. I am also in/of that ground. If there were no connection—e.g., the wavelengths of light that enter my eye—then I would have no awareness of “tree” at all. That does not mean that the picture in my head accurately represents what is there (a different neuro-physiology, such as that bird on the barn roof, may see an entirely different kind of picture in its head). It is simply a picture that is sufficient to allow me to navigate in this world.

If it were not so sufficient, the human race with its deficient neuro-physiology would have simply ceased to exist as a species at some point along the way. But just because it is a pragmatically sufficient map of the territory does mean that it is a representationally accurate map of the territory—if it even makes sense to talk in such terms; and moving beyond the physical analogy, I suspect that it may not.

The awareness, the realization, that we are inescapably and coherently mingled with the whole is pre-conceptual. That is what meditation is about. It is what Zen koans, Hasidic tales, Sufi poetry and other paradoxical religious language is about: to break (or to relax) the habitual conceptual grids which we have become accustomed to projecting on reality. The religious traditions represent a legacy of symbols, metaphors, stories, etc. designed (a) to point beyond themselves to the ineffable ground of being, and (b) as creative aesthetic expressions of the perceived nature of that realization. In both cases, their purpose is essentially evocative (such symbolism may have other functions as well, but that is the essential “spiritual” one).

The symbols/concepts ought not to be confused with that to which they point.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]

We were either created by God or evolved from lifeless matter without devine intervention.

False dichotomy.

Explain. What other scenerios are there?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Either way one must admitt, in some form or fashion, that we were created with free will.

But your previous sentence admits the possibility that we weren't created.

When I use the word "created" I am doing so with reference to both intelligent design and random chance with no intelligent intervention. Again, what other possibilities are there?

Originally posted by SwissGambit

So why is it that we were created with free will? Was is not to be able to choose what we desire?

Why should there be any purpose to having free will? What if it's just the natural result of how we evolved?

Granted, if there is NO God then he could not be credited with giving us free will. However, if the BE a God then such a God intended for us to have free will since we were created with such a gift. But either way one must conceede that free will is the natural order of things and it is one of the reasons we get so bent out of shape when it is violated.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

Well if he exists he either desires us to seek him or not to pursue him.

Again, a false dichotomy. Perhaps God is neutral about whether we seek him or not.

So you are saying that God gave us a free will but is neutral in terms of our interacting with him? Hmm. As I said before if such a God exists it would stand to reason that such a God is indifferent in regards to relating to us. If such a God exists then he is as good as dead in relation to us anyway. You may as well say there is no God in such a scenerio.

One little kink in your theory is our innate desire for loving relationships. If we were created by a God, then such a God planted that inside us. I think you will find that a creation of any kind, whether it be divine or man made, is a reflection of the creator. It is a mirror in regards to what we value, our intelligence level, our needs etc. It would then stand to reason that since love is what all that matters to us, it must have some bearing as well in terms of our Creator if he in fact exists. In addition, as I have stated before, loving relationships demand free will. There is no exception.

Originally posted by vistesd
If “God” is not a (supernatural) being, but the ground and source of being, from which we arise, in which we exist, and of which we are—then everything is already mingled. There is no one to seek, and nowhere to seek it. We project relationship (or non-relationship) based upon our conceptual notions of separateness. This is not necessarily a bad thing, on ...[text shortened]... spiritual” one).

The symbols/concepts ought not to be confused with that to which they point.

This is an interesting perspective. I interpret this perspective to mean that one attains a deep spiritual connection with the material universe. Am I correct? From your vantage point, is there nothing outside the realm of the material universe or is there more to it than that?

Originally posted by whodey
This is an interesting perspective. I interpret this perspective to mean that one attains a deep spiritual connection with the material universe. Am I correct? From your vantage point, is there nothing outside the realm of the material universe or is there more to it than that?

Not really (i.e., as in being correct 🙂 ). When most people use the word “supernatural,” they seem to mean some entity that “exists” outside the natural realm (whatever exactly that means). I am using the word “transcendent” to refer to whatever transcends our capacity to conceptualize—as a mundane example, my cat seems unable to conceptualize my pointing at something: he always looks at my finger. By dispensing with a concept of supernaturalism that I frankly find incoherent, I am not asserting materialism. I am asserting one reality which is ultimately a whole: a “totality without an edge,” as scottishinnz put it once.

At bottom, you have two choices: dualism or non-dualism. In dualism, God is a being among other beings, even if that God is the superest of all beings and, in fact, the creator of the others. One of the incoherencies about this concept is that it seems to assert a figure (God as a being) without a ground. If there is a ground, it is “larger” than such a God and encompasses such a God; and if there is no such ground that encompasses both that God and other beings, relationship between that being and the others is not possible.

In non-dualism, God (for those traditions that use that word) is the ground and source of everything that is, as the ocean is the ground and source of the individual waves that are manifest on its surface. The waves are no more separable from the ocean—from which they arise, of which they are, and to which they return—than my smile is separable from my face. That does not mean that any single (conscious) wave can comprehend the whole of the ocean. It can, however, be in conscious communion with it—or he or she. But such communion takes place at a non-conceptual or pre-conceptual state of awareness (quite a natural state, once one can learn to allow the conceptualizing mind to relax—easier said than done!). [Note that we are always, in a sense, in communion—I liked your word “mingled”—but the realization of that communion is “veiled” by the activity of our thinking mind.]

Once we begin to conceptualize—which of course we will do—once we begin to try to describe it, we are already mentally standing back from it, so to speak. It is rather like trying to describe to yourself an orgasm while in the midst of it: you have already divided your attention from the full experience itself. Few, if any, can sustain a perpetual state of (physical or spiritual) orgasm: hence the metaphorical phrase in my poem, “the rhythm of form and fullness and form.”

I no longer think that I can describe “the ground” at all—and in expressing the experience of communion, I have to use symbols and metaphors and paradox and such. That is, my experience is always participatory—I am always included, inescapably so. Hence my comments above about religious language in general being either evocative or aesthetic (which I think has to be true even within a dualistic theological understanding).

Originally posted by whodey
Explain. What other scenerios are there?

1) Maybe we were created by a powerful being who was not really a god or the capital-G God.
2) Maybe your capital-G God just started things off with the lifeless matter and let it evolve on its own (so both choices could be valid simultaneously.)
3) Maybe the physical world we perceive does not really exist, and we're all just plugged into The Matrix.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
3) Maybe the physical world we perceive does not really exist, and we're all just plugged into The Matrix.

You can take that red pill and shove it right up your ass!

Originally posted by whodey
When I use the word "created" I am doing so with reference to both intelligent design and random chance with no intelligent intervention. Again, what other possibilities are there?

The definitions for "create" involve agents acting with intent and/or imaginative skill. It's not a good word to use in association with 'random chance'.

Originally posted by whodey
Granted, if there is NO God then he could not be credited with giving us free will. However, if the BE a God then such a God intended for us to have free will since we were created with such a gift. But either way one must conceede that free will is the natural order of things and it is one of the reasons we get so bent out of shape when it is violated.

Not everyone concedes that there is free will (although it seems they are a minority position in philosophical circles).

Originally posted by whodey
So you are saying that God gave us a free will but is neutral in terms of our interacting with him? Hmm. As I said before if such a God exists it would stand to reason that such a God is indifferent in regards to relating to us. If such a God exists then he is as good as dead in relation to us anyway. You may as well say there is no God in such a scenerio. ...[text shortened]... ddition, as I have stated before, loving relationships demand free will. There is no exception.

I'm saying that it's possible that God is neutral about whether we seek him or not. That doesn't make him indifferent. Perhaps he welcomes those who choose to seek, and ignores those who do not. I don't see how he's "as good as dead" to us in that case.

I've heard the "mirror" argument before - and I don't find it very impressive. Our favorable attributes are credited to our creator, and our flaws are blamed on us. In other words, although we have a desire to love and be loved, we also act on selfish impulses and damage or even destroy our relationships. In the "mirror" argument, the latter is not attributed to the creator, because it would not reflect well on him.