Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1966
|
Post: #226  Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
|
An atheist cannot argue against Heaven or God since to do so one would have to consider that there is the possibility of God and Heaven to exist in order to have something to argue against.
"Ex nihil, nihil facit"
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gearge
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Hobart Tasmainia Australia
|
| Post: #227 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
Like every other area of knowledge, truth is fundamental, truth describes what is. We did not create "what is" in an ontological sense, we merely happen to exist in it. If truth is at all meaningful, then it exists independent of what we "think." Our task is to discover truth, not to create it. |
I don't think you can ever find out what the fundamental principals of reality are, some things (Some would say everything) can't be proven, we can guess or make assumptions based on Empirical science or faith. And thus what we perceive of the world and what we make of it is so much more important than what actually IS. Truth isn't a singular, where as there may ultimately be one fundamental nature to reality, truth is different for everyone as it changes based off what we perceive.
"Truth isn't real, but reality sculpts perception and perception defines what is true."
also,
| Juice wrote: |
| An atheist cannot argue against Heaven or God since to do so one would have to consider that there is the possibility of God and Heaven to exist in order to have something to argue against. |
Say what? I can assume something is true and then dismiss it as false, that's what science is.
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.
I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras
I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #228 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| An atheist cannot argue against Heaven or God since to do so one would have to consider that there is the possibility of God and Heaven to exist in order to have something to argue against. |
Atheists are as capable as anyone else of arguing within the parameters of that particular box
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #229 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gearge wrote: |
I don't think you can ever find out what the fundamental principals of reality are, some things (Some would say everything) can't be proven, we can guess or make assumptions based on Empirical science or faith. And thus what we perceive of the world and what we make of it is so much more important than what actually IS. Truth isn't a singular, where as there may ultimately be one fundamental nature to reality, truth is different for everyone as it changes based off what we perceive.
"Truth isn't real, but reality sculpts perception and perception defines what is true."
|
Is that your perception? Or is it true?
There are many irrefutable aspects of reality. One is the absolutely necessary existence of difference, without which there can be no perception.
"Truth" is not a question of perception at all. "Truth" is only the accurate account of reality, not merely what is believed else Science would serve no purpose at all and certainly could not be relied upon. Science presumes a Truth to be found and exists merely to find it. Technology is the evidence that it has found a good deal of it "accurately". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcelticwiccan
Joined: 06 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Post: #230 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:56 am Post subject: God and Evil.... |
|
|
|
"If there is a God, why is there evil? Why do bad things happen to good people? Why is there so much needless suffering in the world, from natural disasters and such? Why would a loving God do this?"
First off I'd like to say that there isn't just one God. To me the idea is preposterous. If that were to be true the whole cosmos itself would be out of balance. There has to be an opposite to everything, light/dark, male/female, good/evil... I do believe however that there is a god and goddess. If there is a male god then there must be a female goddess. The whole idea of no god or higher power non-existent is just plain stupid!! I have strong opinions against the christian religion as a whole. Therefore in my belief their whole religion is nothing but a story made up to ease the transition from the old time paganism to Christianity(I do not remember the religion that Emperor Constantine the Great finally accepted at his death bed).
Now why do bad things happen to good people?? Ever hear of **** happens?? And back to the whole balance thing of good and evil. It has to happen to someone. I know that sounds.... Well I can't think of the word but wrong works. But **** just happens, it's all a luck of the draw to the god and goddess. Too much good and the universe/cosmos is thrown out of balance, the same goes for the exact opposite. So in order to maintain the balance they must (be it against their will, enjoy for entertainment, or whatever you want to believe) let evil, needless suffering... What have you, happen. Balance is key. Too much of one or the other and we fall into chaos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gearge
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Hobart Tasmainia Australia
|
| Post: #231 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Is that your perception? Or is it true?
There are many irrefutable aspects of reality. One is the absolutely necessary existence of difference, without which there can be no perception.
"Truth" is not a question of perception at all. "Truth" is only the accurate account of reality, not merely what is believed else Science would serve no purpose at all and certainly could not be relied upon. Science presumes a Truth to be found and exists merely to find it. Technology is the evidence that it has found a good deal of it "accurately". |
Is that your perception? Or is it true?
Ok, I suppose this is my fault for not defining terms very well, but what I call 'Truth' Isn't definitively the Real truth, simply my best guess as to what that might be, this too is what science is; Our best guess. Of course some things are perhaps provable using some kind of method of doubt your not left with much. Truth as you define it is ultimately inaccessible, but it is perhaps something worth striving for, or at least a system that works we may already have one. Technology is proof that we have a method or theory that makes enough scene to be able to work with it an obtain results, this doesn't prove anything, it doesn't make it true, it makes it an Idea that works so why not accept it as truth and value that perceived truth as higher than any fundamental principals of reality that we may after all never find out.
| Quote: |
| First off I'd like to say that there isn't just one God. To me the idea is preposterous. If that were to be true the whole cosmos itself would be out of balance. There has to be an opposite to everything, light/dark, male/female, good/evil... |
Some would argue these (Ok not the female/male one, I don't what to get shot) are simply examples of Privations, there is not Bad just an absence of Good, no dark just places without light. But I do to a degree agree with you over this Augustinian view.
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.
I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras
I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #232 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: Re: God and Evil.... |
|
|
|
| akcelticwiccan wrote: |
| There has to be an opposite to everything, light/dark, male/female, good/evil... |
It is not clear that "everything has an opposite" is a general principle or a mere generalization.
For one thing dark and evil are not real, existing "things." They are the absence of some "thing." Dark means the absence of light - dark does not really exist, only light does - or doesn't. Likewise, evil is the absence or privation of good.
Similarly, the opposite of "existence" is non-existence - which is nada, nothing. So if God is Existence itself, what opposite does there have to be to Existence? Non-Existence - Nothing. So nothing is the opposite of Existence.
So there is "something" which has no opposite - Existence or Being because its opposite is to not exist, which is, therefore, nothing at all.
Sorry but this whole thing of male - female, god/goddess, is based upon a very mistaken view of God. If God IS, God certainly is not something limited which, must therefore have an opposite. God, to be God, cannot be some "thing," but the basis or ground of all that is and the opposite of that is not some other "thing," it is the absence of "thingness" which is nothingness, nothing. So nothing is the opposite of Existence. God need not have an "opposite" because the opposite of God, literally, does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcelticwiccan
Joined: 06 Nov 2009
Posts: 5
|
| Post: #233 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| How can you be sure?? Perhaps that Light is the absence of Dark, and Good is the absence of Evil... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 413
|
| Post: #234 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gearge wrote: |
Some would argue these (Ok not the female/male one, I don't what to get shot) are simply examples of Privations, there is not Bad just an absence of Good, no dark just places without light. But I do to a degree agree with you over this Augustinian view. |
The only reason anyone should back down from an argument is not for fear of getting shot but because you see your own logical error. I don't agree with either of you on the male-ness of God, because the way you are applying maleness to God is backwards. you see it as derived from human maleness / femaleness, when in actual fact, the opposite is true. Gender roles are derived from a broader "archetype" of masculine and feminine.
You both view maleness or femaleness solely within the context of human sexual roles and then object to applying these to God because of how the concept of masculine has been associated with "abuse of power," suppression and devaluation.
The problem here is that you are missing something quite fundamental. The ancients, Christian tradition, and in particular Augustine, did not apply maleness from human gender role to God, but instead understood that the "concept" or archetype behind the concept of maleness is the idea of "masculine" as the "active principle in creation" and saw that this concept applied from God to roles within the human species, and indeed to many instances in nature. A male "actively" makes the egg fertile, a female is the ground for the development of the egg. The roles are real and distinct.
For Augustine, God is the "Active Creative Principle" which energizes and brings all into being because God is pure ACT. The masculine and feminine are two aspects of an archetype which is embedded throughout the universe and reveals something of the nature of God.
The Sun (masculine) provides the "injection" of energy into the Earth to bring about life. Therefore the Sun is the masculine principle and the Earth the feminine principle.
Wherever there is an "active" component and a "receptive" component, there we have an example of the archetype of masculine and feminine.
This archetype is a reality in virtually all biological species of plants and animals, including human beings.
It is a reality in other relationships, as well, not just to "sexual" associations.
A farmer is playing a "masculine" role when planting seeds in the ground - the farmer is the active principle, the soil is the receptive principle.
God is masculine in the sense of being the active "Creator" of all, with the feminine principle being the Void or Nothingness that was the receptive "ground" of creation.
Your error is that you view human "gender" roles as the source of the concept of masculine and feminine, but in reality, human gender roles are only one example of an archetype which is embodied and visible in many aspects of the entire Cosmos and indeed in God as the Active Principle which brings about or "Fathers" all. In a sense, all of creation, including both genders of the human species, plays the feminine "role" where God is concerned. God is not the receptive ground of creation, God is the Absolute Power by which ALL is brought into being.
Of course it makes sense to call God, Father. It is the same sense that we use when we say Hippocrates is the "father" of medicine or Marx is the father of communism. These are the active "forces" behind the birth of a practice or a system. God is the active force behind the birth of the entire Cosmos. What other word would be more appropriate?
It wouldn't make sense to call Marx the mother of communism, and not because he is a male. The reason it doesn't make sense is because there is an identifiable "mother" of communism. The mother is the "ground" for the development of communism, the social, political and economic "conditions" that served as the fertile "ground" for the development of communism.
Same with God's creative act. The mother of creation was the fertile ground, the Void, from which the Universe came into existence. So there are definite identifiable feminine and masculine aspects to creation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #235 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gearge wrote: |
Ok, I suppose this is my fault for not defining terms very well, but what I call 'Truth' Isn't definitively the Real truth, simply my best guess as to what that might be, this too is what science is; Our best guess. Of course some things are perhaps provable using some kind of method of doubt your not left with much. Truth as you define it is ultimately inaccessible, but it is perhaps something worth striving for, or at least a system that works we may already have one. Technology is proof that we have a method or theory that makes enough scene to be able to work with it an obtain results, this doesn't prove anything, it doesn't make it true, it makes it an Idea that works so why not accept it as truth and value that perceived truth as higher than any fundamental principals of reality that we may after all never find out.
|
"Truth" is not definitively real Truth???
If it isn't real, then why call it Truth? What do you call fiction if Truth is what isn't real?
You seem to be saying that if we do not know ALL truth or perfect truth, then we know nothing at all and thus can merely accept any notion as good enough. But then you say that technology working "doesn't prove anything", so why use it?
What is wrong with the idea of accepting that what "seems to work" is good enough for now and must be partly true because it is reliable? With that thought, if we want more things to work, we can "seek MORE truth" or more accurate truth to add to what we "believe" is true.
What is the point in redefining the word "Truth" to mean something ambiguous and unreliable? It seems like an irrational thing to do, especially since people already understand that Truth is something we never know completely, but are not completely blind to either. People already know that their perceptions can be fooled and mislead them, so they know not to totally trust perception either. We all already know that we have to merely make our best guess about almost everything.
| OTavern wrote: |
| Gearge wrote: |
Some would argue these (Ok not the female/male one, I don't what to get shot) are simply examples of Privations, there is not Bad just an absence of Good, no dark just places without light. But I do to a degree agree with you over this Augustinian view. |
The only reason anyone should back down from an argument is not for fear of getting shot but because you see your own logical error. I don't agree with either of you on the male-ness of God, because the way you are applying maleness to God is backwards. you see it as derived from human maleness / femaleness, when in actual fact, the opposite is true. Gender roles are derived from a broader "archetype" of masculine and feminine.
You both view maleness or femaleness solely within the context of human sexual roles and then object to applying these to God because of how the concept of masculine has been associated with "abuse of power," suppression and devaluation.
The problem here is that you are missing something quite fundamental. The ancients, Christian tradition, and in particular Augustine, did not apply maleness from human gender role to God, but instead understood that the "concept" or archetype behind the concept of maleness is the idea of "masculine" as the "active principle in creation" and saw that this concept applied from God to roles within the human species, and indeed to many instances in nature. A male "actively" makes the egg fertile, a female is the ground for the development of the egg. The roles are real and distinct.
For Augustine, God is the "Active Creative Principle" which energizes and brings all into being because God is pure ACT. The masculine and feminine are two aspects of an archetype which is embedded throughout the universe and reveals something of the nature of God.
The Sun (masculine) provides the "injection" of energy into the Earth to bring about life. Therefore the Sun is the masculine principle and the Earth the feminine principle.
Wherever there is an "active" component and a "receptive" component, there we have an example of the archetype of masculine and feminine.
This archetype is a reality in virtually all biological species of plants and animals, including human beings.
It is a reality in other relationships, as well, not just to "sexual" associations.
A farmer is playing a "masculine" role when planting seeds in the ground - the farmer is the active principle, the soil is the receptive principle.
God is masculine in the sense of being the active "Creator" of all, with the feminine principle being the Void or Nothingness that was the receptive "ground" of creation.
Your error is that you view human "gender" roles as the source of the concept of masculine and feminine, but in reality, human gender roles are only one example of an archetype which is embodied and visible in many aspects of the entire Cosmos and indeed in God as the Active Principle which brings about or "Fathers" all. In a sense, all of creation, including both genders of the human species, plays the feminine "role" where God is concerned. God is not the receptive ground of creation, God is the Absolute Power by which ALL is brought into being.
Of course it makes sense to call God, Father. It is the same sense that we use when we say Hippocrates is the "father" of medicine or Marx is the father of communism. These are the active "forces" behind the birth of a practice or a system. God is the active force behind the birth of the entire Cosmos. What other word would be more appropriate?
It wouldn't make sense to call Marx the mother of communism, and not because he is a male. The reason it doesn't make sense is because there is an identifiable "mother" of communism. The mother is the "ground" for the development of communism, the social, political and economic "conditions" that served as the fertile "ground" for the development of communism.
Same with God's creative act. The mother of creation was the fertile ground, the Void, from which the Universe came into existence. So there are definite identifiable feminine and masculine aspects to creation. |
Wow, have you been reading my journals?? You seem to be quoting me almost verbatim.  
Father == Impetus
Mother == Opportunity
And btw, Quantum Physics is a "woman"
..or perhaps just an effeminate male 
Ahdam was built of pure Logic.
Eve was built partly from the logic of Ahdam mixed with lust (Quantum Possibility Statistics) which leads to vanity, blindness, and false hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gearge
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Hobart Tasmainia Australia
|
| Post: #236 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OTavern wrote: |
| Gearge wrote: |
Some would argue these (Ok not the female/male one, I don't what to get shot) are simply examples of Privations, there is not Bad just an absence of Good, no dark just places without light. But I do to a degree agree with you over this Augustinian view. |
The only reason anyone should back down from an argument is not for fear of getting shot but because you see your own logical error. I don't agree with either of you on the male-ness of God, because the way you are applying maleness to God is backwards. |
Sure, I agree whole heartedly, All I was saying is that female/male can't be seen as a Privation (Nor are they genuine opposites) because this implies that Females are missing something that is supposed to be there, where as what we are dealing with here is an absence.
| James S Saint wrote: |
"Truth" is not definitively real Truth???
|
I Have a horrible feeling we're arguing the same point
| Quote: |
| If it isn't real, then why call it Truth? What do you call fiction if Truth is what isn't real? |
What I call truth is sometimes real, and this perception of something that might be real is more important to me than whatever might be really real. God or Samsara or whatever else might be be Truth but I prefer to live with what I perceive to be true.
| Quote: |
You seem to be saying that if we do not know ALL truth or perfect truth, then we know nothing at all and thus can merely accept any notion as good enough. But then you say that technology working "doesn't prove anything", so why use it?
|
As you say, we have an Interpretation and we use it, it works.
| Quote: |
| What is wrong with the idea of accepting that what "seems to work" is good enough for now and must be partly true because it is reliable? With that thought, if we want more things to work, we can "seek MORE truth" or more accurate truth to add to what we "believe" is true. |
Yep, obviously I can't express my views sufficiently, because this is exactly what I'm getting at.
| Quote: |
What is the point in redefining the word "Truth" to mean something ambiguous and unreliable? It seems like an irrational thing to do, especially since people already understand that Truth is something we never know completely, but are not completely blind to either. People already know that their perceptions can be fooled and mislead them, so they know not to totally trust perception either. We all already know that we have to merely make our best guess about almost everything. |
When someone tells you something is true, they are in fact only saying what they think is true, the everyday use of the word truth is ambiguous and unreliable. Perception can be fooled but it is after all all we ultimately have, so why not live accepting what we perceive to be true as truth.
[/b]
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.
I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras
I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #237 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:37 am Post subject: Why Does Evil Exist |
|
|
|
There is evil because there is ignorance and because of free will. God gave us free will to choose between good and evil . We choose evil over good when we think it will make us feel good at the moment or best serves our own selfish desires and purposes. We commit evil and are willing to risk the consequences based upon how good it makes us feel in the moment. Usually we think it will more than likely go unpunished because we do not expect to get caught. Sometimes people get so caught up in their own bad behavior that they allow it to spiral out of control. The more a person behaves a certain way, the more it becomes an established pattern or a bad habit which becomes extremely difficult to break. Additionally, we become desensitized and feel less guilt after numerous repetitions. When we knowingly choose to do something we know is wrong, we are not concerned as to how our actions affect others, or we feel the benefits outweigh the costs, such as the feeling s of the impending guilt that may come later.
On a small scale, you have men cheating on their wives or people cheating other people out of money. On a larger scale, you have sadistic dictators who enjoy hurting the people they should be protecting. It is much easier to understand the former than it is to understand the latter, since sadism does not appeal to most of us. A desire to be god, the love of power and control over others undoubtedly plays a major role. Also, it has been shown that many people who hate others and want to hurt others also loathe themselves. This could become a vicious cycle, as the more they hurt others, the more they hate themselves. Think of how many times you’ve heard of abused children who grow up and abuse the people they love. Their sense of worth was greatly diminished as children. They tend to blame themselves. They feel unworthy of love rather than blame the parent who abused them. Feelings we have as a child can be difficult to overcome as we get older.
If you truly understand the concept of free will, you know that God cannot choose to allow the small sins and act against the large sins, in a way which would violate the laws of nature which He created. God acts through his faithful flock of people who fight against evil and are willing to die to do so. In our day to day existence we think God has deserted us. When we stop and realize how little time we are on earth compared to how long we will live on spiritually, it becomes insignificant that God allows us to hurt each other in order to learn to love each other.
We are all connected so that evil committed against one is committed against all. Until we all learn this lesson, we will remain ignorant and we will continue to hurt each other. Once we realize the principle of Karma, or the Golden Rule, or an eye for an eye, we will understand that in order to be free from pain we must stop causing pain.
We are still in the early learning stages of our spiritual development. If you compare where the world is today, as a whole, as to where it was in the Dark Ages when the masses enjoyed watching victims who were being tortured by order of the king, you must acknowledge we are making progress. This is especially true in the more advanced nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #238 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Gearge wrote: |
Perception can be fooled but it is after all all we ultimately have, so why not live accepting what we perceive to be true as truth.
[/b] |
Because it begs for deception and the use of magic rather than insisting on being allowed to see clearly.
If it "appears" as though the man was killed by accident (perhaps you), then why not just leave it at that?
If it "appears" as though the person is guilty, why question the "truth" of it since truth is only what is perceived?
If things "appear" to be caused by the magician or the priest, why not just accept that perception, why question whether it is "true"?
You seek truth so that you can place credit (or blame) where it is due. Others doing that is all that protects you from the thief in the darkness. "They" are far more clever than you could ever be, without friends also intentionally and with a degree of scrutiny watching your back, you haven't a chance (thus "don't break the circle").
That's why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3850
|
| Post: #239 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
From Gearge, quoted by James S Saint:#235
| Quote: |
| For Augustine, God is the "Active Creative Principle" which energizes and brings all into being because God is pure ACT. The masculine and feminine are two aspects of an archetype which is embedded throughout the universe and reveals something of the nature of God. |
Therefore, Augustine believed that God did not create ex nihilo ('from nothing') but that there would have to have been a feminine principle that God fertilised?Did God create from a primordial chaos, as described in Genesis, or did God create from nothing?
I do ,actually believe this. I forget the Latin name for the belief that God created from some other principle. I do remember reading, in Wikipedia, I think it was, that increasing numbers of theologians believe that God created from a pre-existing principle.
This belief , too, (I must look up the convenient Latin term for it)complies with the belief also stated by Gearge in James S Saint, that sin, and dark, are the absence of good , and light.
From these beliefs I take the further belief that truth is a combination of the pragmatic (qua William James) and the coherence view, that we can improve on our view of What Is, but that the Whole is forever unknown.
Augustine, for example, in the Confessions (book XI, chapters 13 and 14), considers it nonsensical to ask what God was doing before the creation of the world; God, in creating the universe, brings time—and with it, relations of before and after—into existence; thus, it is no more meaningful to ask what came before the first moment of time than it is to ask what is north of the north pole. In traditional theism, the temporal world is spread out before God who can see it in its entirety from an eternal vantage point, like an observer on a hill viewing travelers in a caravan. As Boethius says in The Consolation of Philosophy (book 5, prose 6), eternity is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life. Process theism takes a contrary view that time is the process of creation. In other words, the order of beings in time is the process whereby beings are created. For process metaphysics, there is no eternal act of divine creation that fixes the world in existence and there is no eternal perspective from which the universe can be considered a finished product. Furthermore, the “creative advance,” as Whitehead calls the universe, is inherently open-ended and growing, like a line to which tiny segments are continually being added. Where Aquinas could liken God's prescience to a man viewing a caravan of travelers from a high tower, Hartshorne says, “There is not (either now or eternally) a fixed totality of travelers for God to survey, but a new totality each moment” (Hartshorne 1970, 135).
(Stanford University,a really good internet source)
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #240 Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| Therefore, Augustine believed that God did not create ex nihilo ('from nothing') but that there would have to have been a feminine principle that God fertilised?Did God create from a primordial chaos, as described in Genesis, or did God create from nothing? |
God "fertilized" the "nothingness". So if you want to say that nothingness is feminine, then that would be a thought.
What brought about existence was the entire situation of both the nothingness (infinite opportunity) and the Logic of that situation. God is the Logic that REQUIRED that nothingness spawn and give birth to existence.
Logic is the male
Opportunity is the female
You can distinguish the masculine from the feminine by which is sitting around waiting for the phone call.
And "sin" means "missing the mark" or "error in intent" or simply "oops". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
