Okinrus
Yes. I live about 30 miles away from the Baltimore harbor if that counts.
Indeed it does. The reason I ask is that it provides a sort of counterpoint. You wrote:
-
To believe that God could love an instrument is nonsense. I think even human love is beyond this sort of thing.
You live in a coastal area; do you know any mariners of any serious sort, either professional or recreational? They say a sailor loves his boat more than his wife, and to be honest, there are occasions when it is true.
Perhaps the notion of human love has moved beyond love of an instrument, but humans in general still invent passionate relationships with their instruments. Ask a sailor's wife about his mistress; just for the humorous value, ask the captain and crew of the
M.V. Lesbian Warmonger (I don't know them personally, but wanted to find a way to work the boat into the post.)
If you didn't live in a coastal area, I would have had to resort to cars; it's a weaker comparison, but still ....
And yes, I've known a couple of people who have loved their firearms like I can't possibly ever wish to know.
Ever see
Caddyshack? That bit where the Judge gets out his sacred lucky putter? I've seen that kind of insanity in real life; it's not nearly as funny in reality as it is on the silver screen.
The larger point, of course, is that people tend to love their instruments. And there's the obvious: ask musicians. You'll find a good number of guitarists who would marry their primary guitar if only she could cook as well as she could sing.
Without freewill there is no one to blame for sin except for God.
Um ... I'm looking for a polite way to say, "And ...?"
Admittedly, I'm not having much luck. Sorry 'bout that.
But I'm going to have to ask for a bit of a connect-the-dots. Specifically, while I don't disagree with you, I also don't see what is problematic about the condition.
The bible is infalliable on matters of faith. That does not meant that the bible is perfect. Many people wrongly interpreted the bible. To do really complete and accurate interpretation requires knowledge of the history when it was written and context of the entire bible.
While I disagree with infallibility, I do agree with the last part of that. But this is why the mystics of the monotheistic religions are viewed as elitist; Muslim mystics were among the first to include elitism as a defense against orthodoxy in the sense that they responded to the charges of being weird by saying, "Yes, and that's why it takes a long time to learn enough to be as weird as us."
By contrast, the common faith is ... an institution unto itself.
I think yesterday was the feast day of a 12 year old saint . . . .
I admit, that was
not the response I was expecting.
Um ... give me a little time. Part of what I'm hung up on is the last sentence. Which woman? The saint? The elderly? The one in the van?
In the case of the latter, I have to disagree. She did not have her freedom taken away from her. She was free to choose to have sex or die.
The point being that this is similar to the "free will" of humanity. One has the choice to conform in faith and practice or to be condemned.
And, personally, I can take the Bible in such a manner as to not equal that result directly, but I guarantee you the level of subjectivity and myth awarded the Bible in that case is unacceptable to most Christians, and I do mean most.
Kind of like the way some faithful like to remind that works alone will not get you into heaven but forget the fact that works alone can be held as indicative of faith, and thus can get you
out of heaven.
But the "free will" is held hostage by a revealed stake of duress.
Like I said, though, I'm going to take some more time with your paragraph; I'm sure I've missed something.
For example, if we consider ourselves to be just a collection of cells, then do we really exist when we die?
We cease to exist, in practical and relative terms. We also continue to exist, though not in the same form or according to the same organization; portions of us become disparate and other things. Ibn Sina's (
Avicenna) failed attempt to rationally prove the existence of God,
begins with a consideration of the way our minds work. WHerever we look in the world, we see composite beings that consist of a number o fdifferent elements. A tree, for example, consists of wood, bark, pith, sap, and leaves. When we try to understand something, we "analyze" it, breaking it up into its component parts until no further division is possible. The simple elements seem primary to us as the composite beings they form seem secondary. We are continually looking for simplicity, therefore, for beings that are irreducibly themselves . . . . (Armstrong°, 182)
One must answer the question of what "we" are before one can address the question of what becomes of us when we die.
In theory it appears that we could remove our legs, our arms, our stomach and progresively find the essence of our existance.
The defining essence which separates humanity from other animals will be a matter of organic electricity or other energy. The defining essence which separates any object from any other in the Universe is a ratio of matter and energy and what is happening to either according to the interrelationship of the factors.
Therefore unless if you admit that we do not exist,
This possibility worries me none. In fact, it would do much to alleviate a good amount of stress associated with life.
were just a function of our suroundings and one with the universe, the universe exists and we are just a dependant part of the universe
Well ... monism
is among the traits I show regularly. In fact, it's the answer I gave in a
WE&P topic concerning the religions of the posters.
Also the single existance of ourselves is still in error without freewill, because we exist in the past, present and future if time is just another dimension. Thus we have a infinite number of selves and we cannot even speak of existance without free will.
Think about it this way:
For all the might-have-beens, this is the way things went.. As we go from word to word, second to second, heartbeat to heartbeat, free will may seem self-evident, but it is not. What is the sum of all things with which you have interacted? What is your cumulative effect on the Universe (you are connected intrinsically to the whole Universe, remember)?
But if the Universe is, as science seems to indicate, essentially infinite, and if the Universe generally regards a balance of matter and energy, then it seems that on the one hand, life is a statistical necessity in the Universe to the point that the infinite selves are merely elements of a computer program running different data sets until all possibilities are accounted for (an infinitely complex and perhaps impossible account). By that scenario, we are predetermined in our present manifestations to have exactly this conversation at exactly this time.
I've only heard this in the writings of Justin. I'm not sure about often, but listening to slander given by roman polytheists does not make too much sense.
The Roman opinion on early Christians will make more sense than, say, the Aboriginal Australian opinion on early Christians.
From
The Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius
If the gods have determined about me and about the things which must happen to me, they have determined well, for it is not easy even to imagine a deity without forethought; and as to doing me harm, why should they have any desire towards that? For what advantage would result to them from this or to the whole, which is the special object of their providence? But if they have not determined about me individually, they have certainly determined about the whole at least, and the things which happen by way of sequence in this general arrangement I ought to accept with pleasure and to be content with them. But if they determine about nothing- which it is wicked to believe, or if we do believe it, let us neither sacrifice nor pray nor swear by them nor do anything else which we do as if the gods were present and lived with us- but if however the gods determine about none of the things which concern us, I am able to determine about myself, and I can inquire about that which is useful; and that is useful to every man which is conformable to his own constitution and nature. But my nature is rational and social; and my city and country, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world. The things then which are useful to these cities are alone useful to me. Whatever happens to every man, this is for the interest of the universal: this might be sufficient. But further thou wilt observe this also as a general truth, if thou dost observe, that whatever is profitable to any man is profitable also to other men. But let the word profitable be taken here in the common sense as said of things of the middle kind, neither good nor bad.
I actually came across this quote in Pagels° while looking for a bit about Celsus, but the bit from Celsus is ill-cited in the notes, and so I can't bring you a link to the longer text until I figure out who said what.
I found this suitably ... relevant to another point in this topic. I'll figure out the Celsus bit.
The slave masters would often force the slaves to commit sinful acts. While Paul said "serve your master as you serve your master in heaven.", the slaves in the caribs were often only given four hours of rest. Hardly enough time to serve their king in heaven.
In such limited and direct applications, you have a point, but as a foundation for a larger Truth, it is important to bear in mind that such conditions are not necessarily consistent.
That's why I say,
And why not?
An abused woman almost never really loves her husband . . . my bet is that she would fall in love with the needle and not the man.
I have cited your post as such in the above because in that form, you have it exactly.
Well ... Tertullian
is interesting, but we might prefer a topic of its own, as we see in
Prescriptions:
We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides. (Ch. VII)
Tertullian is an interesting case. I'll give that particular document you recommended further reading, though.
Then how can God take some of the spirit that rested on Moses and let it rest on the 70 elders?
The simplest pseudo-monistic answer would be to note that all that happened was that the spirit was always there and only made apparent at God's will. A removing of a dust-cover, so to speak. Instead of leaving the records on the shelf, divine groove played.
Notes:
° Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994.
° Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996.
:m:,
Tiassa
