I haven't logged in for ... ponders ... probably years this time, but I do lurk occasionally. I just posted about this thread in Another Place and thought it was fair to repeat it here.
Just lurking on an old forum where I worked out most of my theology long before I started on the Witches' Roa... erm, I mean, on my path to priestly ordination.
They're having one of the eternal arguments in Christianity. It's this - is that which is good, good because God says so, or could it be good independently of God's opinion?
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
But if I had to answer them, I'd be saying that the question boils down to asking if God is a monster. Because those who believe God *decrees* goodness into existence, are invariably deploying their belief in support of Christianity doing something evil like shitting on queer people, genociding unbelievers, enslaving people with the wrong skin colour, or whatever else the Church of the day has decided is God's Will (tm).
Apologies for calling you/us all an old forum, but the old ones are the best!
I haven't logged in for ... ponders ... probably years this time, but I do lurk occasionally. I just posted about this thread in Another Place and thought it was fair to repeat it here.
Just lurking on an old forum where I worked out most of my theology long before I started on the Witches' Roa... erm, I mean, on my path to priestly ordination.
They're having one of the eternal arguments in Christianity. It's this - is that which is good, good because God says so, or could it be good independently of God's opinion?
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
But if I had to answer them, I'd be saying that the question boils down to asking if God is a monster. Because those who believe God *decrees* goodness into existence, are invariably deploying their belief in support of Christianity doing something evil like shitting on queer people, genociding unbelievers, enslaving people with the wrong skin colour, or whatever else the Church of the day has decided is God's Will (tm).
Apologies for calling you/us all an old forum, but the old ones are the best!
I haven't logged in for ... ponders ... probably years this time, but I do lurk occasionally. I just posted about this thread in Another Place and thought it was fair to repeat it here.
If you would care to I would be interested in an unpacking of your post in a separate thread. If not, that's fine too, and good to see you around.
I haven't logged in for ... ponders ... probably years this time, but I do lurk occasionally. I just posted about this thread in Another Place and thought it was fair to repeat it here.
Just lurking on an old forum where I worked out most of my theology long before I started on the Witches' Roa... erm, I mean, on my path to priestly ordination.
They're having one of the eternal arguments in Christianity. It's this - is that which is good, good because God says so, or could it be good independently of God's opinion?
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
But if I had to answer them, I'd be saying that the question boils down to asking if God is a monster. Because those who believe God *decrees* goodness into existence, are invariably deploying their belief in support of Christianity doing something evil like shitting on queer people, genociding unbelievers, enslaving people with the wrong skin colour, or whatever else the Church of the day has decided is God's Will (tm).
Apologies for calling you/us all an old forum, but the old ones are the best!
I'll add my welcome back, though I'm not sure we were close? It is good to see your face.
To the post, if folks will pardon some syncretism, I was thinking that there's some security, or some terror (depending on your thinking) in the Taoist side of things. There's always that ancient nugget "The Tao (way) you can name is not the nameless Tao," implying that any notion that we understand must be fallacious, and I think in that gap there is always a liberty to play. I think this might be what you're referring to with the veils? We always have to understand there's a blind.
Jesus, of course, caused the temple curtain to tear itself apart, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure that we can actually say we have the same understanding now that was present then. And so we're back to fumbling around, honestly, in the dark, one hopes with appropriate fear and trembling.
And if you read further into the Tao Te Ching, there's a famous poem in which it narrates the descent of loss as people lose The Way and begin clinging to lesser forms, finally settling on empty Ritual (of course a core Confucian tenet, this is a suspected ideological slap possibly akin to "begotten not made.")
Some of this feels like it can resonate with some of what Jesus said in the gospels.
Of course, some people will see this and think that the Tao is just a legal loophole through which you could drive an oil tanker's worth of ungodly mischief.
I think I was in seminary when I learned about this Catholic notion of "Invincible Ignorance," that is suppose to cover folks who are or or were literally incapable of experiencing the gospel.
Of course, this creates a perverse incentive to never hear the gospel, if you're the gaming sort.
It also means the most loving thing you can do for others is ensure they never, ever have a chance of hearing the gospel - because that ignorance ensures their salvation.
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
But if I had to answer them, I'd be saying that the question boils down to asking if God is a monster. Because those who believe God *decrees* goodness into existence, are invariably deploying their belief in support of Christianity doing something evil like shitting on queer people, genociding unbelievers, enslaving people with the wrong skin colour, or whatever else the Church of the day has decided is God's Will (tm).
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
Yeah, sorry. That was Martin levels of obscure, wasn't it? Bullfrog's got it though. The Veils are sort of ideas of the nature of existence behind which it's not profitable to attempt to go. In Kabbalah they're very very loosely, Nothingness, Limitlessness, and Limitless Light. This side of those we can talk meaningfully about existence and God, the other side we're just making gibberish sentences about things we can't understand.
All religions have to do something similar. Christianity does it with cataphatic/apophatic theology, and the distinction between essence and energies.
The point I was clumsily making was, to think about a God-like-being that doesn't have the qualities associated with God, you have to go behind the Veils. It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
Maybe. But people who believe that could do us all a favour and stop going around pretending their God is good and loving.
I think I was in seminary when I learned about this Catholic notion of "Invincible Ignorance," that is suppose to cover folks who are or or were literally incapable of experiencing the gospel.
Of course, this creates a perverse incentive to never hear the gospel, if you're the gaming sort.
It also means the most loving thing you can do for others is ensure they never, ever have a chance of hearing the gospel - because that ignorance ensures their salvation.
Yup. Deployed that argument many times here on the Ship - the only way to ensure someone's damnation is to tell them the Gospel. In that system, it's the most evil thing you can ever do.
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
Yeah, sorry. That was Martin levels of obscure, wasn't it? Bullfrog's got it though. The Veils are sort of ideas of the nature of existence behind which it's not profitable to attempt to go. In Kabbalah they're very very loosely, Nothingness, Limitlessness, and Limitless Light. This side of those we can talk meaningfully about existence and God, the other side we're just making gibberish sentences about things we can't understand.
All religions have to do something similar. Christianity does it with cataphatic/apophatic theology, and the distinction between essence and energies.
The point I was clumsily making was, to think about a God-like-being that doesn't have the qualities associated with God, you have to go behind the Veils. It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
Maybe. But people who believe that could do us all a favour and stop going around pretending their God is good and loving.
Fuck that. that’s a personal attack on anyone who believes, not pretends, that God is loving. You don’t have to believe it. But attacking me and those like me outwith of Hell is just uncalled for.
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
Yeah, sorry. That was Martin levels of obscure, wasn't it? Bullfrog's got it though. The Veils are sort of ideas of the nature of existence behind which it's not profitable to attempt to go. In Kabbalah they're very very loosely, Nothingness, Limitlessness, and Limitless Light. This side of those we can talk meaningfully about existence and God, the other side we're just making gibberish sentences about things we can't understand.
All religions have to do something similar. Christianity does it with cataphatic/apophatic theology, and the distinction between essence and energies.
The point I was clumsily making was, to think about a God-like-being that doesn't have the qualities associated with God, you have to go behind the Veils. It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
Maybe. But people who believe that could do us all a favour and stop going around pretending their God is good and loving.
Fuck that. that’s a personal attack on anyone who believes, not pretends, that God is loving. You don’t have to believe it. But attacking me and those like me outwith of Hell is just uncalled for.
There's another way of looking at it though; in that essentially these are all ways of trying to peek at God behind his own revelation of himself - on that level this is no more than the conclusion you'd expect as the end point of a theology of glory.
My answer is that I'm very grateful I ended up in esoteric Christianity, and that there's a damn good reason why Kabbalah uses the three Veils of the Absolute in order to prevent theological thought from disappearing up the proverbial.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
Yeah, sorry. That was Martin levels of obscure, wasn't it? Bullfrog's got it though. The Veils are sort of ideas of the nature of existence behind which it's not profitable to attempt to go. In Kabbalah they're very very loosely, Nothingness, Limitlessness, and Limitless Light. This side of those we can talk meaningfully about existence and God, the other side we're just making gibberish sentences about things we can't understand.
All religions have to do something similar. Christianity does it with cataphatic/apophatic theology, and the distinction between essence and energies.
The point I was clumsily making was, to think about a God-like-being that doesn't have the qualities associated with God, you have to go behind the Veils. It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
Maybe. But people who believe that could do us all a favour and stop going around pretending their God is good and loving.
Fuck that. that’s a personal attack on anyone who believes, not pretends, that God is loving. You don’t have to believe it. But attacking me and those like me outwith of Hell is just uncalled for.
You misread. @Grayface is talking about those who claim their God is good and loving while what they say about him and do in his name (or seek to do) actually portrays a monster.
You misread. @Grayface is talking about those who claim their God is good and loving while what they say about him and do in his name (or seek to do) actually portrays a monster.
It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
For me, if there’s a issue on which our morality says something is good while God’s word says it is bad then that leaves only two possibilities - God is not good, or our sense of what’s good is imperfect, corrupted, and/or incomplete.
The second is vastly more likely to be true, IMO, but looking at this world He has forced us to endure I can’t completely rule out the former.
Comments
Apologies for calling you/us all an old forum, but the old ones are the best!
Fantastic to see you again @Grayface
You too
If you would care to I would be interested in an unpacking of your post in a separate thread. If not, that's fine too, and good to see you around.
I'll add my welcome back, though I'm not sure we were close? It is good to see your face.
To the post, if folks will pardon some syncretism, I was thinking that there's some security, or some terror (depending on your thinking) in the Taoist side of things. There's always that ancient nugget "The Tao (way) you can name is not the nameless Tao," implying that any notion that we understand must be fallacious, and I think in that gap there is always a liberty to play. I think this might be what you're referring to with the veils? We always have to understand there's a blind.
Jesus, of course, caused the temple curtain to tear itself apart, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure that we can actually say we have the same understanding now that was present then. And so we're back to fumbling around, honestly, in the dark, one hopes with appropriate fear and trembling.
And if you read further into the Tao Te Ching, there's a famous poem in which it narrates the descent of loss as people lose The Way and begin clinging to lesser forms, finally settling on empty Ritual (of course a core Confucian tenet, this is a suspected ideological slap possibly akin to "begotten not made.")
Some of this feels like it can resonate with some of what Jesus said in the gospels.
Of course, some people will see this and think that the Tao is just a legal loophole through which you could drive an oil tanker's worth of ungodly mischief.
Tao Te Ching: Chapter 38
It also means the most loving thing you can do for others is ensure they never, ever have a chance of hearing the gospel - because that ignorance ensures their salvation.
I’ve googled that, but I still don’t understand what you mean by it.
Maybe God is a monster. There’s plenty of evidence for that conclusion, and precious little evidence to the contrary IMO.
Or just doesn't exist. Solves both problems.
Yeah, sorry. That was Martin levels of obscure, wasn't it? Bullfrog's got it though. The Veils are sort of ideas of the nature of existence behind which it's not profitable to attempt to go. In Kabbalah they're very very loosely, Nothingness, Limitlessness, and Limitless Light. This side of those we can talk meaningfully about existence and God, the other side we're just making gibberish sentences about things we can't understand.
All religions have to do something similar. Christianity does it with cataphatic/apophatic theology, and the distinction between essence and energies.
The point I was clumsily making was, to think about a God-like-being that doesn't have the qualities associated with God, you have to go behind the Veils. It doesn't make sense to ask if there can be an objective good that disagrees with God's word, if you've defined God to be inherently good with all the omnis. Although I think Socrates had a go at it.
Maybe. But people who believe that could do us all a favour and stop going around pretending their God is good and loving.
Yup. Deployed that argument many times here on the Ship - the only way to ensure someone's damnation is to tell them the Gospel. In that system, it's the most evil thing you can ever do.
Fuck that. that’s a personal attack on anyone who believes, not pretends, that God is loving. You don’t have to believe it. But attacking me and those like me outwith of Hell is just uncalled for.
There's another way of looking at it though; in that essentially these are all ways of trying to peek at God behind his own revelation of himself - on that level this is no more than the conclusion you'd expect as the end point of a theology of glory.
You misread. @Grayface is talking about those who claim their God is good and loving while what they say about him and do in his name (or seek to do) actually portrays a monster.
Exactly.
For me, if there’s a issue on which our morality says something is good while God’s word says it is bad then that leaves only two possibilities - God is not good, or our sense of what’s good is imperfect, corrupted, and/or incomplete.
The second is vastly more likely to be true, IMO, but looking at this world He has forced us to endure I can’t completely rule out the former.