We actually use the term 'bat' to refer to two fairly different types of creature, so your mental image might not be entirely accurate.
Pedantic tangent: While fruit bats don't look a lot like microbats, past the obvious, apparently they are in fact the same type of creature contrary to some theories. (Horseshoe bats are more closely related to fruit bats than they are to other microbats.)
Yes I'm aware, but people imagine physical forms rather than DNA family trees.
Somehow I missed the "crawl with revulsion" statement. I suppose I can see that, but I think you're wrong. Let me explain.
There are things in the universe that have both a good form and a bad form. Take dependency, for example. Most people shudder at the idea of hosting a parasite--tapped into your bloodstream, making use of your body, contributing nothing, taking everything, growing ever bigger... Eeurghh!!!
But call it an unborn baby, and there's a sudden shift in the emotional content. Yet everything I just said is still true. What has changed? IMHO, the difference is that the mother/fetus relationship falls into the mental category of "things that are supposed to be that way," while the bloodsucking tapeworm falls into the category of "Bleurrgbghhhh emphatically NOT!"
(By the way, you can't get out of this by saying that the tapeworm is doing damage while the fetus is not. Ask any pregnant woman what price she pays for carrying a baby. Ask any father who loses a wife in childbirth. We still think of pregnancy as normal, natural, and good.)
Okay, so there are two relationships which are both of the form "host/parasite" which nevertheless have vastly different emotional implications. That shows you (I hope) that it is possible to have relationships that share most of the same characteristics but that are poles away from each other in terms of being good or bad.
Now let's look at the God/creature relationship. It has tons of facets, but the ones I want to focus on here is the one that you mentioned as specifically creepy: "constantly prying into their life" and not giving "the other privacy and a lot of time alone." To put it as clearly as I can, you object to God's omniscience, his constant presence, his personal interest, and (I'm fairly sure) his interventionist tendencies.
Okay.
As long as you think of God as an equal (or, God forbid, an inferior), this is totally on the money. Who wants a colleague, even a spouse or sibling, to be that close and constantly in one's face? Plus what gives that person the right or responsibility to know that much about me, and even to interfere, either directly or by telling me what to do? It would be an outrage. It would be, in fact, for them to act like.... well, like God.
Oh dear.
And that's where we wind up again. Because if God IS God--that is, if he is the one who planned you, made you, delights in you as a craftsman delights in his work, expects the best of you as a teacher does of a student, is ready to lay down his own life for you as a parent for a child, has the calm relentlessness of a GP chasing you, his patient, until you agree to have that colonoscopy you KNOW you should have had three years ago...
You see where this is going. We are not in fact looking at a collegial relationship, a relationship of (more or less) equals. We are looking at a superior relationship, where the greater of the two people has rights and responsibilities over you (me, anyone) simply by nature of what he is.
The problem might be this: In the kind of cultures you and I come from, we do not readily accept superior relationships in which we ourselves are not the superior. Oh sure, we admit parents to be our superiors, but only up to a certain age--and then we bug out as quickly as we can, anxious to be independent. We most of us refuse to accept a political leader (king, queen, president, whatever) as superior-in-fact; at most we acknowledge that somebody's got to do the job (with a certain amount of eye rolling and a deep inner conviction that we ourselves could do much better). And I don't know anybody who considers their boss to be superior in anything but amount of power (and if you're lucky, skill).
So we're not used to this sort of thing. We revolt against it, with an unthinking knee-jerk reaction. We are so unhappy with it (as a culture, I mean) that we put our children through extreme crap in our old age because we don't want to surrender any of our own independence and come once again under the control of a superior, however kindly and wise. Some of us won't even surrender the car keys, even when legally blind.
But if there is in fact a God... If he is as described... if we are the wonderful yet flawed and limited creatures we secretly know ourselves to be.... then the superior aspect of the relationship is a given, and we're going to have to crawl out of our tantrum and deal with it. Otherwise we're ignoring reality, and that never turns out well.
I can speak from experience that it's really not as bad as you think--in fact, it's wonderful, given the personality of the God in question ("come on in! the water's fine!"). But there's no denying it's a wrench for people brought up in Western cultures.
I never wanted or had children and I think a principle reason for that was I never wanted to be subordinate to something or to anyone. It follows that the idea of a God to which I am subordinate appals me.
I'm nor sure that's down to Western culture, so much as me being an individualist. Ultimately, I can't accept the possibility of something existing that's more important, subjectively speaking, than me.
Well, that grieves me, but it's not precisely a logical answer to the issue. You can't tolerate such a God emotionally--okay. That's a shame. But what will you do if such a God exists?
That was a hypothetical rhetorical question, by the way. You need not answer. Just pointing out that the universe doesn't generally accommodate itself to our wishes.
The universe is what it is, not what we wish, no question. The problem I have is that people think that god is a loving one and properly deserves worship.
Yes, one of the traditional criticisms of theism, is that it satisfies our wishes, not our observations. Of course, some theists argue that gods are experienced.
Ultimately, I can't accept the possibility of something existing that's more important, subjectively speaking, than me.
Wow. It's such a relief to me to know that I am not all that great at all, that I can't begin to describe it. I don't know how you cope with the responsibility, and your failure to live up to it.
Faith beliefs will have to adapt to the realisation that God/god/etc is noticeably totally absent from all of this. I wonder how they will do so.
Why will they have to adapt to that realization? Just because you believe God is absent from all of this?
Susan, bless her, has forgotten what faith means. It certainly doesn't mean superstition; that God intervenes beyond ineffably by the Spirit since our local Incarnation.
Ultimately, I can't accept the possibility of something existing that's more important, subjectively speaking, than me.
Wow. It's such a relief to me to know that I am not all that great at all, that I can't begin to describe it. I don't know how you cope with the responsibility, and your failure to live up to it.
I think you're missing the importance of the word, 'subjectively'.
Most of these arguments for gods are subjective, and one cannot attack them really. If you find the delicacy of a flower such an argument, who am I to judge? If Blake sees a world in a grain of sand, I can enjoy that perception, and sometimes share it. After that, there are all the gods in human history to appreciate, long live the lares and penates.
No, not the Christian God, per se. I don't understand why any one would want to live with anyone or anything constantly prying into their life. Healthy relationships, imo, require each party to give the other privacy and a lot of time alone.
We are looking at a superior relationship, where the greater of the two people has rights and responsibilities over you (me, anyone) simply by nature of what he is.
This is one of the themes that Rowan Williams thinks important in his theology. If we think of God as just another being like Zeus or Thor or Odin, much like us but superior in power and possibly intellect and benevolence, then God and finite causes are competing for agency. If two people are doing something then each is ultimately independent of each other: it is unhealthy for either to subordinate themselves to the other. If Odin builds the world out of the skull of Ymir then it didn't come about through matter acting randomly in response to physical laws.
But it makes no sense to say that my actions are in conflict with physical laws or that it is ultimately unhealthy for me to be dependent on the physical laws. The physical laws are a precondition of my independent existence.
God's agency is like that of the physical law rather than that of a finite being, who themselves is subject to some subset of physical laws. That is, God's agency is one of the things that creates our independent agency. Of Thor it might be possible to ask whether the loud bang is Thor dropping his hammer or whether it's oppositely-charged ions in the earth and storm clouds cancelling each other out. But in the case of God, of any infinite deity (all infinite deities must be the same deity), the answer is both. God doesn't infringe the part of me that requires privacy; God sustains the part of me that requires privacy.
Most of these arguments for gods are subjective, and one cannot attack them really. If you find the delicacy of a flower such an argument, who am I to judge? If Blake sees a world in a grain of sand, I can enjoy that perception, and sometimes share it. After that, there are all the gods in human history to appreciate, long live the lares and penates.
Indeed, and of course atheism is equally a subjective view. The point at which it gets tricky is when anyone claims that their subjective god/God created another person's subjective reality or plays a role within that person's life, or, heaven forbid, is objectively true.
And there's nothing wrong with sharing one's subjectivity with others in the hope of learning something about one's self, or in anticipation that someone might get pleasure from whatever it is you perceive to be subjectively good. But just because I, for example, appreciate Shinto, Tom Waits, Caspar David Friedrich, ouzo, and Parmesan cheese there's no reason why you, or anyone else, should like them or that I should be sad if you don't like them. You might appreciate Daoism, Joan Sutherland, Mark Rothko, Crème de Menthe, and Edam and who am I to judge you for it.
Well, you do get that weird idea that you are fighting against God, by being indifferent. As we have said, damn those bloody leprechauns/unicorns/dryads, stop persecuting me!
No, not the Christian God, per se. I don't understand why any one would want to live with anyone or anything constantly prying into their life. Healthy relationships, imo, require each party to give the other privacy and a lot of time alone.
We are looking at a superior relationship, where the greater of the two people has rights and responsibilities over you (me, anyone) simply by nature of what he is.
This is one of the themes that Rowan Williams thinks important in his theology. If we think of God as just another being like Zeus or Thor or Odin, much like us but superior in power and possibly intellect and benevolence, then God and finite causes are competing for agency. If two people are doing something then each is ultimately independent of each other: it is unhealthy for either to subordinate themselves to the other. If Odin builds the world out of the skull of Ymir then it didn't come about through matter acting randomly in response to physical laws.
But it makes no sense to say that my actions are in conflict with physical laws or that it is ultimately unhealthy for me to be dependent on the physical laws. The physical laws are a precondition of my independent existence.
God's agency is like that of the physical law rather than that of a finite being, who themselves is subject to some subset of physical laws. That is, God's agency is one of the things that creates our independent agency. Of Thor it might be possible to ask whether the loud bang is Thor dropping his hammer or whether it's oppositely-charged ions in the earth and storm clouds cancelling each other out. But in the case of God, of any infinite deity (all infinite deities must be the same deity), the answer is both. God doesn't infringe the part of me that requires privacy; God sustains the part of me that requires privacy.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Also God is nothing like the physical laws. Gravity doesn't give a damn for the poor sod falling off a roof. God, supposedly, does!
NB, I agree that all infinite deities (assuming such exist) must be the same deity but would say that all the finite (as in defined) deities, God, Shiva, et cetera, et cetera, are pale echoes of that infinite deity and include, strange as it sounds, that deity which the atheist believes does not exist.
Well, you do get that weird idea that you are fighting against God, by being indifferent. As we have said, damn those bloody leprechauns/unicorns/dryads, stop persecuting me!
Indeed. It's a bit like patriotism. One can't be indifferent to one's birth-country without the accusation of being unpatriotic.
Ultimately, I can't accept the possibility of something existing that's more important, subjectively speaking, than me.
Wow. It's such a relief to me to know that I am not all that great at all, that I can't begin to describe it. I don't know how you cope with the responsibility, and your failure to live up to it.
I think you're missing the importance of the word, 'subjectively'.
Not at all If there's nothing more important than you, then subjectivity is absolutely all you've got - there is nothing to stand above your viewpoint.
How do you feel about the nobility of self-sacrifice in these strange times - dead doctors in China, Italy, and now here. Does it make any sense to you, are their deaths just a function of an employment contract (that would fuck me off, being contractually obliged to die and doing so in order not to breach its terms) - or something else?
Is the nobility of self-sacrifice an argument for gods? <Scratches head. Thinks of birds doing broken wing display to distract predators. Scratches head>.
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations? But Yahweh is a blunderbuss of a headmaster, saying stop wanking and lying, or something.
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations?.
I suspect @Colin Smith could advise further on the gay and carefree nature of polytheistic deities. But as for the lares and penates you mention above ... do you mean the lares born of Lara, the nymph whose tongue was cut out upon telling of Jupiter's illicit love affairs and rapes, and who descended to the underworld as Muta, the Silent Goddess? The one whose siblings are the Lemures, the vengeful dead? And do the penates include the ones housed in the Temple of Vesta, in which the famous women dedicated to tending her flame preserved their virginity at the penalty of being buried alive?
Sure, the 'pagan' deities are a rich tapestry. But even the leprechauns and unicorns were not so harmless once upon a time, and to take them as adding only 'gaiety' is to take them very much reduced. They only became so when they were no longer taken seriously, and at a distance.
I wasn't claiming that at all. To be clear, I thought you were oversimplifying on both ends of the spectrum. Sure, it's possible to read the monotheisms reductively as crude and thuggish - missing out on the millennia of richness and nuance and depth that constitute them. And sure, it's possible to view polytheistic traditions as a bunch of colourful, fun, superstitions - and miss out on their darker and more serious and conflictual sides.
It's easy to dismiss or embrace crude parodies. But I'm not sure what the value is, really.
I think you're missing the importance of the word, 'subjectively'.
Not at all If there's nothing more important than you, then subjectivity is absolutely all you've got - there is nothing to stand above your viewpoint.
How do you feel about the nobility of self-sacrifice in these strange times - dead doctors in China, Italy, and now here. Does it make any sense to you, are their deaths just a function of an employment contract (that would fuck me off, being contractually obliged to die and doing so in order not to breach its terms) - or something else?
I feel admiration, but I also admire those who risk their lives climbing mountains. I don't make a distinction between the two because both groups of people are doing something that is important to them and accepting the risks that go with it. Self-sacrifice isn't noble; it's just an unintended consequence of taking a risk.
I don't mean that there is nothing more important to me than my own survival. I mean there is nothing more important to me than living my life as I choose to live it, which necessarily involves taking a few risks now and then.
I know they're now a long way back now, but @Lamb Chopped thank you for both your posts, the long one and the short one too.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
I know they're now a long way back now, but @Lamb Chopped thank you for both your posts, the long one and the short one too.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
Angry? Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? I could be angry that those who believe in the thing that I believe doesn't exist use that belief to justify and enact laws and approve social morals I disagree with, and I could be angry that some iterations of that God appear to me to be downright malign, but I'm certainly not angry with a God that I believe doesn't exist.
And there are people who believe in dryads and leprechauns, or at least believe in a whole variety of benign and malign supernatural entities.
I don't mean that there is nothing more important to me than my own survival. I mean there is nothing more important to me than living my life as I choose to live it, which necessarily involves taking a few risks now and then.
No, it's OK I didn't take you up like that - I just wondered if you were 'solid' on finding nothing more important than yourself - and if so, whether self-sacrifice would look bizarre. Your last post suggests to me that you think their sacrifice makes sense in a kind of way, in that they preserve their self-image as being people prepared to die for someone else, and that's their right. That fits with Q's pointing towards Nietzsche and the idolisation of the aesthetic.
Yes, one of the traditional criticisms of theism, is that it satisfies our wishes, not our observations.
The problem with this idea is that not everybody is into wish fulfillment. I myself am just the opposite--the more I fear something, the more likely I think it to be true (witness, for example, my concerns for my family amid the pandemic!). The fact that I believe in the Christian God is a triumph of something (the Holy Spirit?) over a massive temperamental leaning toward the Eeyore.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Real question: What do you mean, sin requires privacy? Do you mean that only acts done in private are truly sin? (Because we've got some shit going on in Washington DC that is surely sin, and yet it's being done in front of God and everybody)
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations? But Yahweh is a blunderbuss of a headmaster, saying stop wanking and lying, or something.
I don't think he cares about wanking. There's nothing in the Scripture about it as a sin. Lying, well, if you consider Trump, you'll get YHWH's point.
I know they're now a long way back now, but @Lamb Chopped thank you for both your posts, the long one and the short one too.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
Thank you!
About leprechauns etc.--
I've lived for 30 some years among people who do in fact have a living believe in spirits etc. and the overwhelming emotion they raise is fear. People do shit like shaving off their hair (of 30 years' growth) because they want to be so ugly the evil spirits of sickness won't recognize them and come back. They name their children words like "Trash" and "Unwanted" so the evil spirits don't recognize their value and kill them off. They dress boys as girls (sorry, folks) because in their culture the boys are considered of higher value, and evil spirits etc. etc. etc. People propitiate their ancestors (in my experience) because they might do something bad to them, even though in life the person was a sweetheart and would never dream of it.
Give me the Christian God any time, over this dreadful slavery. (It's been interesting helping new believers adjust to living in freedom.)
I was picking up on Colin's point about finding nothing more important than oneself. Is love possible in such circumstances?
Yes, there are several conversations going on here. I think narcissists can experience love, well there was a old debate as to whether babies love, I think they can adore.
Yes, one of the traditional criticisms of theism, is that it satisfies our wishes, not our observations.
The problem with this idea is that not everybody is into wish fulfillment. I myself am just the opposite--the more I fear something, the more likely I think it to be true (witness, for example, my concerns for my family amid the pandemic!). The fact that I believe in the Christian God is a triumph of something (the Holy Spirit?) over a massive temperamental leaning toward the Eeyore.
Yes, that's interesting, although there are many explanations of theism, for example, warding off threat. I don't think wish fulfilment is it alone.
I don't mean that there is nothing more important to me than my own survival. I mean there is nothing more important to me than living my life as I choose to live it, which necessarily involves taking a few risks now and then.
No, it's OK I didn't take you up like that - I just wondered if you were 'solid' on finding nothing more important than yourself - and if so, whether self-sacrifice would look bizarre. Your last post suggests to me that you think their sacrifice makes sense in a kind of way, in that they preserve their self-image as being people prepared to die for someone else, and that's their right. That fits with Q's pointing towards Nietzsche and the idolisation of the aesthetic.
Yes to your last point. People wouldn't make the effort to climb mountains if it was easy and at the extreme end of 'not easy' things can get hazardous. Similarly, people who have climbed a mountain get more respect than those who flew to the summit in a helicopter or rode up a railway.
However, if you're aware of the huge concern over the scarcity of protective clothing and masks for medical workers during the crisis you'll see that self-sacrifice has its limits. And also yes, there are people whose sense of self-worth is based on caring for others and obviously the medical profession would be a natural draw for them.
At an evolutionary level I suppose a having quotient of individuals prepared to risk their life for the herd is useful. I'm just not one of them.
I know they're now a long way back now, but @Lamb Chopped thank you for both your posts, the long one and the short one too.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
Thank you!
About leprechauns etc.--
I've lived for 30 some years among people who do in fact have a living believe in spirits etc. and the overwhelming emotion they raise is fear. People do shit like shaving off their hair (of 30 years' growth) because they want to be so ugly the evil spirits of sickness won't recognize them and come back. They name their children words like "Trash" and "Unwanted" so the evil spirits don't recognize their value and kill them off. They dress boys as girls (sorry, folks) because in their culture the boys are considered of higher value, and evil spirits etc. etc. etc. People propitiate their ancestors (in my experience) because they might do something bad to them, even though in life the person was a sweetheart and would never dream of it.
Give me the Christian God any time, over this dreadful slavery. (It's been interesting helping new believers adjust to living in freedom.)
And thus yet one more part of the world becomes a little less exotic, a little less colourful, more beige.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Real question: What do you mean, sin requires privacy? Do you mean that only acts done in private are truly sin? (Because we've got some shit going on in Washington DC that is surely sin, and yet it's being done in front of God and everybody)
Good question. To knowingly do something bad one must do it in private so one isn't found out. The things in Washington are being done in public because those doing it are either ignorant of their sinning or believe their actions will be approved of by their supporters.
Yes, one of the traditional criticisms of theism, is that it satisfies our wishes, not our observations.
The problem with this idea is that not everybody is into wish fulfillment. I myself am just the opposite--the more I fear something, the more likely I think it to be true (witness, for example, my concerns for my family amid the pandemic!). The fact that I believe in the Christian God is a triumph of something (the Holy Spirit?) over a massive temperamental leaning toward the Eeyore.
Yes, that's interesting, although there are many explanations of theism, for example, warding off threat. I don't think wish fulfilment is it alone.
There's also the explanation which says that it's true: God is.
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations? But Yahweh is a blunderbuss of a headmaster, saying stop wanking and lying, or something.
I don't think he cares about wanking. There's nothing in the Scripture about it as a sin. Lying, well, if you consider Trump, you'll get YHWH's point.
I always assumed the line about casting seed on stony ground referred to male masturbation. Obvs, women would never think of doing something like that so they never mentioned it
I was picking up on Colin's point about finding nothing more important than oneself. Is love possible in such circumstances?
Well, if X loves me then that is a sign of how important I am to her. If I love X that is a measure of my capacity to love
But it comes back to what oneself means. It's much more than just the survival of the self (it would be daft if it was because we all know death is inevitable) and more about one's sense of self and how one lives.
I know they're now a long way back now, but @Lamb Chopped thank you for both your posts, the long one and the short one too.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
Thank you!
About leprechauns etc.--
I've lived for 30 some years among people who do in fact have a living believe in spirits etc. and the overwhelming emotion they raise is fear. People do shit like shaving off their hair (of 30 years' growth) because they want to be so ugly the evil spirits of sickness won't recognize them and come back. They name their children words like "Trash" and "Unwanted" so the evil spirits don't recognize their value and kill them off. They dress boys as girls (sorry, folks) because in their culture the boys are considered of higher value, and evil spirits etc. etc. etc. People propitiate their ancestors (in my experience) because they might do something bad to them, even though in life the person was a sweetheart and would never dream of it.
Give me the Christian God any time, over this dreadful slavery. (It's been interesting helping new believers adjust to living in freedom.)
And thus yet one more part of the world becomes a little less exotic, a little less colourful, more beige.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Real question: What do you mean, sin requires privacy? Do you mean that only acts done in private are truly sin? (Because we've got some shit going on in Washington DC that is surely sin, and yet it's being done in front of God and everybody)
Good question. To knowingly do something bad one must do it in private so one isn't found out. The things in Washington are being done in public because those doing it are either ignorant of their sinning or believe their actions will be approved of by their supporters.
Really? You are way more charitable-minded than I could ever be. Have you never seen anybody strutting about with actions and attitudes that say, "I did it, and I'M GLAD!"
To do something in private is not proof that the person knows it's wrong--they could simply know that it wasn't socially approved (e.g. picking your nose) or that it wasn't something other people wanted to see (vomiting). It could also be a positive act, e.g. wrapping Christmas presents. Conversely, to do something in public doesn't mean the act is good. I've known people to murder each other in the presence of their young children, at least one of whom was clinging to one of their legs (it was a knife vs. gun thingy), and took place at a Mother's Day party with like, a zillion people around.
The truth is, doing something evil in public can be a power play--it is a way of saying, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and nobody would turn against me" (not that anybody has ever said such a thing, you understand). It is a way of stressing how very important a person you are--I can even get away with public sin. But for the argument (such as it is!) to work, what you do must be sin. "I could kiss someone on Fifth Avenue" wouldn't have quite the same ring.
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations? But Yahweh is a blunderbuss of a headmaster, saying stop wanking and lying, or something.
I don't think he cares about wanking. There's nothing in the Scripture about it as a sin. Lying, well, if you consider Trump, you'll get YHWH's point.
I always assumed the line about casting seed on stony ground referred to male masturbation. Obvs, women would never think of doing something like that so they never mentioned it
Dude!
The story about casting seed on stony ground was a story about a farmer. I think you can keep your highly-colored fantasies out of it.
The problem with this idea is that not everybody is into wish fulfillment. I myself am just the opposite--the more I fear something, the more likely I think it to be true (witness, for example, my concerns for my family amid the pandemic!). The fact that I believe in the Christian God is a triumph of something (the Holy Spirit?) over a massive temperamental leaning toward the Eeyore.
Yes, that's interesting, although there are many explanations of theism, for example, warding off threat. I don't think wish fulfilment is it alone.
There's also the explanation which says that it's true: God is.[/quote]
But theism ≠ God. God, as in the Christian God, is one of many hundreds, if not millions of possible gods a theist could believe in. The question isn't so much whether a theist is right, but which of the many possible gods are they right about.
One thing about the finite deities is that they are vivid, even ravishing. A deity for the toilet, or the brothel or the kitchen? Doesn't this add to the gaiety of nations? But Yahweh is a blunderbuss of a headmaster, saying stop wanking and lying, or something.
I don't think he cares about wanking. There's nothing in the Scripture about it as a sin. Lying, well, if you consider Trump, you'll get YHWH's point.
I always assumed the line about casting seed on stony ground referred to male masturbation. Obvs, women would never think of doing something like that so they never mentioned it
Dude!
The story about casting seed on stony ground was a story about a farmer. I think you can keep your highly-colored fantasies out of it.
Yeah, I know it was about a farmer, but I always assumed it was a metaphor.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Real question: What do you mean, sin requires privacy? Do you mean that only acts done in private are truly sin? (Because we've got some shit going on in Washington DC that is surely sin, and yet it's being done in front of God and everybody)
Good question. To knowingly do something bad one must do it in private so one isn't found out. The things in Washington are being done in public because those doing it are either ignorant of their sinning or believe their actions will be approved of by their supporters.
Really? You are way more charitable-minded than I could ever be. Have you never seen anybody strutting about with actions and attitudes that say, "I did it, and I'M GLAD!"
To do something in private is not proof that the person knows it's wrong--they could simply know that it wasn't socially approved (e.g. picking your nose) or that it wasn't something other people wanted to see (vomiting). It could also be a positive act, e.g. wrapping Christmas presents. Conversely, to do something in public doesn't mean the act is good. I've known people to murder each other in the presence of their young children, at least one of whom was clinging to one of their legs (it was a knife vs. gun thingy), and took place at a Mother's Day party with like, a zillion people around.
The truth is, doing something evil in public can be a power play--it is a way of saying, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and nobody would turn against me" (not that anybody has ever said such a thing, you understand). It is a way of stressing how very important a person you are--I can even get away with public sin. But for the argument (such as it is!) to work, what you do must be sin. "I could kiss someone on Fifth Avenue" wouldn't have quite the same ring.
You're right. I guess I'm much more modest in my sinning. It's my English reserve. But of course not everything done in private is a sin and I never meant to convey that it was.
And thus yet one more part of the world becomes a little less exotic, a little less colourful, more beige.
Nowhere in the world has ever been exotic. Everything is normal for where it is.
Anyway that's your subjective truth, isn't it? It looks beige to you because you have beige spectacles on?
Comments
Nice post. (I mean the long one.)
Yes I'm aware, but people imagine physical forms rather than DNA family trees.
Wow. It's such a relief to me to know that I am not all that great at all, that I can't begin to describe it. I don't know how you cope with the responsibility, and your failure to live up to it.
This. Thank you @WHyatt
Nice.
Susan, bless her, has forgotten what faith means. It certainly doesn't mean superstition; that God intervenes beyond ineffably by the Spirit since our local Incarnation.
I think you're missing the importance of the word, 'subjectively'.
But it makes no sense to say that my actions are in conflict with physical laws or that it is ultimately unhealthy for me to be dependent on the physical laws. The physical laws are a precondition of my independent existence.
God's agency is like that of the physical law rather than that of a finite being, who themselves is subject to some subset of physical laws. That is, God's agency is one of the things that creates our independent agency. Of Thor it might be possible to ask whether the loud bang is Thor dropping his hammer or whether it's oppositely-charged ions in the earth and storm clouds cancelling each other out. But in the case of God, of any infinite deity (all infinite deities must be the same deity), the answer is both. God doesn't infringe the part of me that requires privacy; God sustains the part of me that requires privacy.
Indeed, and of course atheism is equally a subjective view. The point at which it gets tricky is when anyone claims that their subjective god/God created another person's subjective reality or plays a role within that person's life, or, heaven forbid, is objectively true.
And there's nothing wrong with sharing one's subjectivity with others in the hope of learning something about one's self, or in anticipation that someone might get pleasure from whatever it is you perceive to be subjectively good. But just because I, for example, appreciate Shinto, Tom Waits, Caspar David Friedrich, ouzo, and Parmesan cheese there's no reason why you, or anyone else, should like them or that I should be sad if you don't like them. You might appreciate Daoism, Joan Sutherland, Mark Rothko, Crème de Menthe, and Edam and who am I to judge you for it.
But surely sin requires privacy so if God does not infringe that part of oneself that requires privacy then God isn't aware of anyone's sin.
Also God is nothing like the physical laws. Gravity doesn't give a damn for the poor sod falling off a roof. God, supposedly, does!
NB, I agree that all infinite deities (assuming such exist) must be the same deity but would say that all the finite (as in defined) deities, God, Shiva, et cetera, et cetera, are pale echoes of that infinite deity and include, strange as it sounds, that deity which the atheist believes does not exist.
Indeed. It's a bit like patriotism. One can't be indifferent to one's birth-country without the accusation of being unpatriotic.
Not at all
How do you feel about the nobility of self-sacrifice in these strange times - dead doctors in China, Italy, and now here. Does it make any sense to you, are their deaths just a function of an employment contract (that would fuck me off, being contractually obliged to die and doing so in order not to breach its terms) - or something else?
I suspect @Colin Smith could advise further on the gay and carefree nature of polytheistic deities. But as for the lares and penates you mention above ... do you mean the lares born of Lara, the nymph whose tongue was cut out upon telling of Jupiter's illicit love affairs and rapes, and who descended to the underworld as Muta, the Silent Goddess? The one whose siblings are the Lemures, the vengeful dead? And do the penates include the ones housed in the Temple of Vesta, in which the famous women dedicated to tending her flame preserved their virginity at the penalty of being buried alive?
Sure, the 'pagan' deities are a rich tapestry. But even the leprechauns and unicorns were not so harmless once upon a time, and to take them as adding only 'gaiety' is to take them very much reduced. They only became so when they were no longer taken seriously, and at a distance.
It's easy to dismiss or embrace crude parodies. But I'm not sure what the value is, really.
I feel admiration, but I also admire those who risk their lives climbing mountains. I don't make a distinction between the two because both groups of people are doing something that is important to them and accepting the risks that go with it. Self-sacrifice isn't noble; it's just an unintended consequence of taking a risk.
I don't mean that there is nothing more important to me than my own survival. I mean there is nothing more important to me than living my life as I choose to live it, which necessarily involves taking a few risks now and then.
And @quetzalcoatl I think the reason why people aren't frightened any more of leprechauns or dryads, why they're just quaint, is because nobody really believes they exist. Following on from that @Colin Smith, have you wondered how you can be angry with someone that you don't believe might exist?
Angry? Where do you get the idea that I'm angry? I could be angry that those who believe in the thing that I believe doesn't exist use that belief to justify and enact laws and approve social morals I disagree with, and I could be angry that some iterations of that God appear to me to be downright malign, but I'm certainly not angry with a God that I believe doesn't exist.
And there are people who believe in dryads and leprechauns, or at least believe in a whole variety of benign and malign supernatural entities.
No, it's OK I didn't take you up like that - I just wondered if you were 'solid' on finding nothing more important than yourself - and if so, whether self-sacrifice would look bizarre. Your last post suggests to me that you think their sacrifice makes sense in a kind of way, in that they preserve their self-image as being people prepared to die for someone else, and that's their right. That fits with Q's pointing towards Nietzsche and the idolisation of the aesthetic.
The problem with this idea is that not everybody is into wish fulfillment. I myself am just the opposite--the more I fear something, the more likely I think it to be true (witness, for example, my concerns for my family amid the pandemic!). The fact that I believe in the Christian God is a triumph of something (the Holy Spirit?) over a massive temperamental leaning toward the Eeyore.
Real question: What do you mean, sin requires privacy? Do you mean that only acts done in private are truly sin? (Because we've got some shit going on in Washington DC that is surely sin, and yet it's being done in front of God and everybody)
I don't think he cares about wanking. There's nothing in the Scripture about it as a sin. Lying, well, if you consider Trump, you'll get YHWH's point.
Thank you!
About leprechauns etc.--
I've lived for 30 some years among people who do in fact have a living believe in spirits etc. and the overwhelming emotion they raise is fear. People do shit like shaving off their hair (of 30 years' growth) because they want to be so ugly the evil spirits of sickness won't recognize them and come back. They name their children words like "Trash" and "Unwanted" so the evil spirits don't recognize their value and kill them off. They dress boys as girls (sorry, folks) because in their culture the boys are considered of higher value, and evil spirits etc. etc. etc. People propitiate their ancestors (in my experience) because they might do something bad to them, even though in life the person was a sweetheart and would never dream of it.
Give me the Christian God any time, over this dreadful slavery. (It's been interesting helping new believers adjust to living in freedom.)
Yes, there are several conversations going on here. I think narcissists can experience love, well there was a old debate as to whether babies love, I think they can adore.
Yes, that's interesting, although there are many explanations of theism, for example, warding off threat. I don't think wish fulfilment is it alone.
Yes to your last point. People wouldn't make the effort to climb mountains if it was easy and at the extreme end of 'not easy' things can get hazardous. Similarly, people who have climbed a mountain get more respect than those who flew to the summit in a helicopter or rode up a railway.
However, if you're aware of the huge concern over the scarcity of protective clothing and masks for medical workers during the crisis you'll see that self-sacrifice has its limits. And also yes, there are people whose sense of self-worth is based on caring for others and obviously the medical profession would be a natural draw for them.
At an evolutionary level I suppose a having quotient of individuals prepared to risk their life for the herd is useful. I'm just not one of them.
And thus yet one more part of the world becomes a little less exotic, a little less colourful, more beige.
Good question. To knowingly do something bad one must do it in private so one isn't found out. The things in Washington are being done in public because those doing it are either ignorant of their sinning or believe their actions will be approved of by their supporters.
There's also the explanation which says that it's true: God is.
I always assumed the line about casting seed on stony ground referred to male masturbation. Obvs, women would never think of doing something like that so they never mentioned it
Well, if X loves me then that is a sign of how important I am to her. If I love X that is a measure of my capacity to love
But it comes back to what oneself means. It's much more than just the survival of the self (it would be daft if it was because we all know death is inevitable) and more about one's sense of self and how one lives.
There's always science fiction.
Really? You are way more charitable-minded than I could ever be. Have you never seen anybody strutting about with actions and attitudes that say, "I did it, and I'M GLAD!"
To do something in private is not proof that the person knows it's wrong--they could simply know that it wasn't socially approved (e.g. picking your nose) or that it wasn't something other people wanted to see (vomiting). It could also be a positive act, e.g. wrapping Christmas presents. Conversely, to do something in public doesn't mean the act is good. I've known people to murder each other in the presence of their young children, at least one of whom was clinging to one of their legs (it was a knife vs. gun thingy), and took place at a Mother's Day party with like, a zillion people around.
The truth is, doing something evil in public can be a power play--it is a way of saying, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and nobody would turn against me" (not that anybody has ever said such a thing, you understand). It is a way of stressing how very important a person you are--I can even get away with public sin. But for the argument (such as it is!) to work, what you do must be sin. "I could kiss someone on Fifth Avenue" wouldn't have quite the same ring.
Dude!
The story about casting seed on stony ground was a story about a farmer. I think you can keep your highly-colored fantasies out of it.
There's also the explanation which says that it's true: God is.[/quote]
But theism ≠ God. God, as in the Christian God, is one of many hundreds, if not millions of possible gods a theist could believe in. The question isn't so much whether a theist is right, but which of the many possible gods are they right about.
Yeah, I know it was about a farmer, but I always assumed it was a metaphor.
You're right. I guess I'm much more modest in my sinning. It's my English reserve. But of course not everything done in private is a sin and I never meant to convey that it was.
And the seed in the farmer story stands fot the Gospel message. It's explained just a little further down in the chapter.
Anyway that's your subjective truth, isn't it? It looks beige to you because you have beige spectacles on?