Dodging God.

[Jack Knave]

and again we are back to you stating facts about a deity. Can you justify them?

NS, we are talking about something that in all probability doesn't exist so it is all based on a hypothetical definition of a deity which is idealistic i.e. they are fully competent, besides other traits and characteristics. Anything less than being perfect would discount them as being deities.

[Jack Knave]

Yes, the role of human psychology in the development of religion shouldn't be underestimated. Indeed, it is crucial to the input of St Paul to Christianity itself - and not only because of his original "revelation". One might ask - why was he so hung up about the Jewish law, and referred to it as a 'curse'? Largely because he couldn't keep it, no matter how hard he tried. And I suspect this might have something to do with his sexuality. And so you get "Justification by faith", the keynote of Protestantism, in contrast with the faith + works attitude of Catholicism (there is a paradox here which NearlySane may be able to throw some light on -whence the "Protestant work-ethic", since Protestants firmly believe that no amount of good works can get you into heaven automatically. NS comes from a country where this dour work ethic is particularly strong, I think )

As for the the psychological impulses behind the Great Schism - well, the whole thing seems like intruding on private grief most times. Karen Armstrong, the well-known scholar of religion, has I think commented that part of the problem lay in the western Church's overemphasis on getting belief expressed in intellectual formulae (ironically enough, this woud be called 'orthodoxy'), whereas the Orthodox had a more intuitive approach. This however seems to be contradicted by our resident Orthodox believer, ad-orientem, who expressed his opposition to the Catholic position in a succinct intellectual formula, which he thought had profound consequences for Christian theology.

With regards to your last paragraph I would have thought 'succinct' was very western and 'scientific' which in my books would refer to the psychological ethos of this sector of the world. But I believe the creed was just as much as a political tool as it was a religious one - something to not only to define the faith but to exclude those pesky 'pagan', mystic lot masquerading as Christians.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, we are talking about something that in all probability doesn't exist so it is all based on a hypothetical definition of a deity which is idealistic i.e. they are fully competent, besides other traits and characteristics. Anything less than being perfect would discount them as being deities.

But whose hypothetical definition? Why is your idealistic one, what should be taken as definitive? What does 'perfect' mean?

[Jack Knave]

But whose hypothetical definition? Why is your idealistic one, what should be taken as definitive? What does 'perfect' mean?

Perfect means perfect.

Idealistic means idealistic.

Definitive means definitive.

So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?

[Nearly Sane]

Perfect means perfect.

Idealistic means idealistic.

Definitive means definitive.

So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?

  anthrax means auiop

[Gordon]

Perfect means perfect.

Idealistic means idealistic.

Definitive means definitive.

So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?

Even if we agreed on the definition of terms like 'perfect' there seems no way to be even reasonably sure our definition was in any sense objective.

Then there is the problem of testing this definition against the characteristics of a deity, which requires a method to determine these characteristics in whichever deity we decide to study (assuming it agrees to be studied) and compare them to our 'perfection' standard: so we need a divine volunteer. Even then there is a problem, since if the compliant volunteer doesn't measure up then we'd have an imperfect deity, which sounds like a problem unless another is conveniently to hand - if not I suppose we could do some spin and redefine 'perfect' so that it fits what we think we have, but I can't imagine we'd get away with that since we'd be accused of being biased.

Doesn't sound like a very promising venture: nothing worse than risking getting the result you don't want (it would the theological equivalent of Brexit and Trump combined). Best not bother, which means of course that we're back to guessing and asserting!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

anthrax means auiop

Ah, but Brexit means Brexit.

[Dicky Underpants]

With regards to your last paragraph I would have thought 'succinct' was very western and 'scientific' which in my books would refer to the psychological ethos of this sector of the world. But I believe the creed was just as much as a political tool as it was a religious one - something to not only to define the faith but to exclude those pesky 'pagan', mystic lot masquerading as Christians.

The creed and the other main topic of the Great Schism certainly had immense political consequences. But sometimes it appeals to my sense of humour - as when the heads of either faction excommunicated each other.

[Dicky Underpants]

Perfect means perfect.

Idealistic means idealistic.

Definitive means definitive.

So a prospective deity that is a bumbling fool and understands nothing would be deity? I think we could agree on some superlative characteristics of a hypothetical deity, can we not?

'Deity' is a very indefinite word - and the Christians themselves have always found it difficult to come up with a satisfactory definition of their own (hence the tradition of apophatic mysticism). Likewise, Buddhists talk of Nirvana etc in negatives.
However, you seem to want a definition which derives directly from the Christian God of the 'omnis'. And yet most literate people are happy to refer the Greek gods of Homer in less than superlative terms - indeed that is the way that Homer depicts them, not least Zeus, the most powerful of all. Likewise the many gods of Hinduism*. Not bumbling fools, but certainly not omniscient.

*This would seem to apply to the Godhead Brahman himself:
"Only that God in highest heaven knows these things. Or perhaps he knows not."
from the Rig Veda, I think.

[wigginhall]

There are also contemporary attempts to describe a God who is less than all-powerful.   For example, 'weak theology' speaks for itself, and I think process theology also portrays a God, who is less able than omnipotent.   Also, I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes?   They tend to accept a world without miracles. 

Another point is that weak theology is quite ancient, in the sense that Christians have often said that God is found in vulnerability and humiliation, not in strength and power.   For example, there is the view that the career of Jesus is totally shambolic.  Your mileage may vary. 

[Brownie]

wigginhall: ...I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes?   They tend to accept a world without miracles. 


Yes we do;  we don't look for, and are not impressed by, signs and wonders.
We tend to pray that we can cope with, and get some help to either bear or somewhat relieve a difficult situation.

[Nearly Sane]

wigginhall: ...I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes?   They tend to accept a world without miracles. 


Yes we do;  we don't look for, and are not impressed by, signs and wonders.
We tend to pray that we can cope with, and get some help to either bear or somewhat relieve a difficult situation.

Alan Burns thinks finding his contact lens is a miracle. Sassy cursed a fruit farmer. Hope is always on about miracles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

There are also contemporary attempts to describe a God who is less than all-powerful.   For example, 'weak theology' speaks for itself, and I think process theology also portrays a God, who is less able than omnipotent.   Also, I wonder how many Christians really expect God to cure all cancers or stop earthquakes?   They tend to accept a world without miracles. 

Another point is that weak theology is quite ancient, in the sense that Christians have often said that God is found in vulnerability and humiliation, not in strength and power.   For example, there is the view that the career of Jesus is totally shambolic.  Your mileage may vary.

That’s interesting – it seems to me that, as soon as you posit a god of the omnis, all sorts of logical contradictions ensue. Possibly the problem is that Christians overreach – maybe they’d be on safer ground positing a God powerful enough to start a universe but no more, knowledgeable enough to know a lot of things but unencumbered by the problem of unknown unknowns, good enough to bring his own son back from the dead but not so fussed about other people’s children swept away by tsunamis etc.

There’d still be no cogent logic for his existence in the first place, but at least the more obvious arguments that falsify the “all the omnis” version would be swept away.

Any takers here?   

[Jack Knave]

Even if we agreed on the definition of terms like 'perfect' there seems no way to be even reasonably sure our definition was in any sense objective.

Then there is the problem of testing this definition against the characteristics of a deity, which requires a method to determine these characteristics in whichever deity we decide to study (assuming it agrees to be studied) and compare them to our 'perfection' standard: so we need a divine volunteer. Even then there is a problem, since if the compliant volunteer doesn't measure up then we'd have an imperfect deity, which sounds like a problem unless another is conveniently to hand - if not I suppose we could do some spin and redefine 'perfect' so that it fits what we think we have, but I can't imagine we'd get away with that since we'd be accused of being biased.

Doesn't sound like a very promising venture: nothing worse than risking getting the result you don't want (it would the theological equivalent of Brexit and Trump combined). Best not bother, which means of course that we're back to guessing and asserting!

All this trouble just because NS has nothing better to do than throw spanners; or golden sickles, into the works.   

[Brownie]

Alan Burns thinks finding his contact lens is a miracle. Sassy cursed a fruit farmer. Hope is always on about miracles.

 

Dunno about Alan, didn't Sassy curse the fruit and not the fruiterer?

Regarding miracles, one can look back and think there have been miracles in  life but they wouldn't stand up to scientific scrutiny;  they are still miraculous to the person concerned.

[Sebastian Toe]

Dunno about Alan, didn't Sassy curse the fruit and not the fruiterer?

Whatever was cursed, the crops fsiled and the farmer went out of business i believe.
A good result all around?

[Jack Knave]

Wiggs,

That’s interesting – it seems to me that, as soon as you posit a god of the omnis, all sorts of logical contradictions ensue. Possibly the problem is that Christians overreach – maybe they’d be on safer ground positing a God powerful enough to start a universe but no more, knowledgeable enough to know a lot of things but unencumbered by the problem of unknown unknowns, good enough to bring his own son back from the dead but not so fussed about other people’s children swept away by tsunamis etc.

There’d still be no cogent logic for his existence in the first place, but at least the more obvious arguments that falsify the “all the omnis” version would be swept away.

Any takers here?   

They couldn't do that else their God would become just another pagan god. It's all about one upmanship.

[Brownie]

Whatever was cursed, the crops fsiled and the farmer went out of business i believe.
A good result all around?

Depends how well he was insured.  Is it a true story or an anecdote?  I don't believe any of us have that power, the crops would have failed anyway.

(I won't ask why the strawberries were cursed, I vaguely remember the post but not the details.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

They couldn't do that else their God would become just another pagan god. It's all about one upmanship.

I know it is, but why overreach? Why not settle for "my god is bigger than your god" and dispense with the superlatives and absolutes that so undermine your assertions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

rownie,

Depends how well he was insured.  Is it a true story or an anecdote?  I don't believe any of us have that power, the crops would have failed anyway.

(I won't ask why the strawberries were cursed, I vaguely remember the post but not the details.)

Your memory is letting you down - they weren't "cursed", they were crushed...

...with a sweetened basil vinaigrette sauce, pink pepper shortbread and a bitter chocolate bavois I believe.

[wigginhall]

I think the 'weak' God is tacitly accepted by some Christians, since they don't really think that God will suddenly cure everybody in the local hospital.   I suppose you get a nominal kind of belief in the all-powerful, but pragmatically, well, no.

As to the implications of this for Christian belief, I have no idea.  It might become a kind of kindly ethics, with carols.   It might wither away.  And of course, you will get the swing to the opposite, I mean, the nutty stuff that God does cause earthquakes because of the gays, or something. 

Process theology has been fairly influential, started by Alfred North Whitehead, and latterly Charles Hartshorne.   God, this stuff is boring.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the 'weak' God is tacitly accepted by some Christians, since they don't really think that God will suddenly cure everybody in the local hospital.   I suppose you get a nominal kind of belief in the all-powerful, but pragmatically, well, no.

As to the implications of this for Christian belief, I have no idea.  It might become a kind of kindly ethics, with carols.   It might wither away.  And of course, you will get the swing to the opposite, I mean, the nutty stuff that God does cause earthquakes because of the gays, or something. 

Process theology has been fairly influential, started by Alfred North Whitehead, and latterly Charles Hartshorne.   God, this stuff is boring.

You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.

"Toddlerism" - I like that. The god of the literalist Christians does seem to be an awful petulant one doesn't he.

[wigginhall]

You have to love the nutty stuff though. The idea that god gets upset and causes some mpnatutal disaster that kills innocent third parties as some massive temper tantrum is stonkingly laughable. Imagine worshipping a giant toddler.

Except that in the US, these people probably feel emboldened by Trump, and may start to try to reverse pro-gay legislation and also pro-trans.   I think the VP is a 'cure the gays' man, isn't he?

[Nearly Sane]

Except that in the US, these people probably feel emboldened by Trump, and may start to try to reverse pro-gay legislation and also pro-trans.   I think the VP is a 'cure the gays' man, isn't he?

Yes, that part of it is scary. Also a creationist, thinks evolution is 'just a theory'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY